The ugly Kavanaugh debate; press slams Trump on Ford

close

Video

The ugly Kavanaugh debate

This is a rush transcript from "Media Buzz," October 7, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: On the Buzz Meter this Sunday, one of the ugliest brawls in the history of Washington isn't over. Brett Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court justice but the hyper polarized media debate rages on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I think one reason that Brett Kavanaugh won this is that he became one political with Donald Trump. He was the aggrieved party last Thursday. He sounded like Donald Trump in robes.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: They tried to ruin a man's life for political gain. It turned the confirmation process for the U.S. Supreme Court into a circus and something frankly befitting of a banana republic.

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER US ATTORNEY: I can (inaudible) a very long time Brett Kavanaugh is going to have an asterisk next to his name and any decision that he participates in.

S.E. CUPP, CNN: Today, Kavanaugh avoided becoming a verb unlike Robert Bork before him, but he will likely carry an asterisk around with him for years.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

KURTZ: Has the press been salting against Kavanaugh and in favor of Christine Blasey Ford? Has journalism have inflamed the passions? Have the media gone overboard in promoting the questionable claims of the second and third Kavanaugh accusers? Brett Kavanaugh writes a last-minute op-ed for the Wall Street Journal he was too emotional in his often angry testimony of this as pundits keep punching away at that five-day probe by the FBI.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He's doing this as a P.R. move to try to convince people that no, I'm actually not unhinged and I can control my temper. I'm not a part of (inaudible)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC: Besides being an obvious whitewash, the FBI's report does nothing to address concerns about Kavanaugh's misleading or outright false statements.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: The media coverage of this has been so one-sided, it has been so biased. There has been the presumption from the very beginning that every single allegation made against the judge was true.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

KURTZ: Plus, a wave of women from journalist to the White House, from Connie Cheung to Kellyanne Conway breaking their silence about past sexual assault, the impact on their lives and why they have forgotten most of the details. We'll talk to a reporter who went public. I'm Howard Kurtz and this is "Media Buzz."

The media drama went down to the wire. What we'll remember for decades is a raw, and emotional and excruciatingly personal battle over a Supreme Court seat that turned on conduct back in high school. The Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh yesterday by a 50-48 margin, but guess what? The political debate and the culture war is hardly over.

Joining us now to analyze the coverage: Mollie Hemingway, senior editor of The Federalist and a Fox News contributor; Susan Ferrechio, chief congressional correspondent for the Washington Examiner, and Philippe Reines, former State Department official under Hillary Clinton.

Now, we're hearing a lot of talk about asterisks. Washington Post headline, "Senators representing less than half the U.S. about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans. So now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed, the mainstream media seemed to be a bit deflated.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST: Well, I think they lost a battle and it was clear that they had taken sides in that battle. You saw a lot of people tweeting on social media or you could just read it in the coverage or watch it in our coverage. But they felt very strongly that Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

It showed up in how they selected their stories, how they framed their stories, how they presented the issues. And I think that this was a loss for them. I even saw Jim Acosta, CNN reporter tweet something like, "Can't you all just win graciously?"

KURTZ: Yes, here he tweeted and deleted, Jim Acosta, CNN White House correspondent, accuse the White House of bullying the press, "It's shameful. My goodness, can't you guys win gracefully? Does that mean that he and his side lot.

HEMINGWAY: It's an admission that he had a side, and that is inappropriate for a journalist. But there is no question that so many journalists have picked a side and they are continuing to pick a side.

KURTZ: Susan, on ABC this week, Jonathan Karl had said at first that this was a victory for President Trump and this was the first question that he asked Kellyanne Conway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: How concerned are you that given all that went down and the way this went down, that Brett Kavanaugh will be seen as a tainted justice by roughly half of the country?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Justice Kavanaugh should not be seen as tainted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So, Kavanaugh won, Trump won and we are hearing words like tainted.

SUSAN FERRECHIO, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: It's a legitimate question. Look what he's just gone through. Look at the hearing, the emotions exposed, the charges maid against him, repeated in the press without a lot of, you know, verifying on the part of the media.

It was slanted against him in the media. And he does walk away, fairly or not, Kavanaugh walks away tainted from this in the same way that Clarence Thomas did back when he was accused of sexual harassment during his nomination process.

KURTZ: And that the allegation is sort of indelible.

FERRECHIO: They just hang out there and people remember the headlines. They don't remember all the little details.

KURTZ: Could the media and certainly aided by Democrats, having failed to corroborate the allegation by Christine Blasey Ford and the other accusers -- they moved the goal post by and last week, Philippe, making this about drinking and yearbook inscriptions and what was the meaning of the devil's triangle and all these things that might be seen as more minor points from decade ago.

PHILIPPE REINES, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: In don't think so. I mean, I think fundamentally this goes for every network including this network. This has been a very confusing and challenging issue for weeks now and I think what you are seeing with the media are two things.

You are seeing the standard partisan reflection, which again is not specific to CNN or MSNBC. Someone could be watching now and confuse Mollie and Susan or Mollie and I have opinions, Susan doesn't, but someone might just conflate us. The clip you showed of CNN of the four people, I think all four were suppose to have opinions.

But the second thing is that this has in some way made us back to a 50-50 nation which we haven't been since Election Day. It's been -- I know that sounds strange --

KURTZ: Did I miss something in the last --

REINES: well, no, because -- yes, because we have been more of a 55-45 or a 60-40 nation. And, you know, the searing moments of the last year and a half were the Charlottesville or Helsinki, who have actually brought together the people who were not for Trump.

I think this is the first time we're seeing a legitimate coalition of Republicans even if they are not incredibly pro Trump. And I think that's what you're seeing in terms of the fever pitch.

KURTZ: So, unprecedented for a Supreme Court nominee to write an op-ed piece as with Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal where Kavanaugh said, "I was very emotional in his testimony more so than I've ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know my tone was sharp and I said a few things I should not have said." That suggests to me the criticism of the testimony about not having a judicial temperament really stunned.

HEMINGWAY: Well, I think so, and also do I think it speaks to how the media covered this issue. When he gave that speech, I think for a lot of Americans, they heard this (inaudible) defense of the values of western civilization. When the media talked about it they said, oh my my he's very emotional that they called him a gang rapist.

And so there was so much pressure against him being emotional in response to outlandish charges that were never proven and were never even provable. And I think that that framing of it led to things like this when I'm not sure that was entirely necessary.

KURTZ: Well, Brett Kavanaugh also said things openly partisan things like this was the revenge of the Clintons. But let me ask you, are the media now shifting the debate? It's over. He's on the Supreme Court. He'll report for work Monday and we now just debate this, oh, he's going to be such a partisan justice. He's going to hurt the reputation of the court for decades. In other words, is this fight ever going to end?

REINES: Well, I mean, to this day I guess we're 30 years close to later than Clarence Thomas and people put an asterisk next to his name, doesn't make a difference.

KURTZ: Well, who gives the media the power to bestow asterisks when somebody has been legitimately nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate?

REINES: Well, if it your job for, you know, an official oversight, you know, extra constitutional, and if you see a justice doing something. Now, again, he sat here and I agree with Mollie. It's OK to be emotional. It's OK to be furious and frustrated.

What he did from there is not OK, to blame the Clinton machine for this, for his interactions with those senators. That was someone who in the course of trying to prove he could not have done this actually showed the exact person that may have done this.

KURTZ: So you think the media criticism over that was justified?

REINES: Absolutely, because it was reflecting the criticism of people like me. I would be more happy with Amy Coney Barrett who was more conservative taking the seat tomorrow rather than Brett Kavanaugh solely because of that performance.

KURTZ: (Inaudible) how she might have gotten roughed up in a confirmation process, Susan.

FERRECHIO: I would argue though that the reason he wrote that Wall Street Journal op-ed had lots to do with the opening part of his remarks so we can recall when he started out talking about his reputation and his family.

I felt the Wall Street Journal argument that he made was really aimed at the second part that Philippe just mentioned, which is when he started to attacking the Democrats. That's when it undercut his temperament and what kind of justice he would be. I thought he wrote in defense of that, that he was going to be independent. That was to assure last minute doubters amongst Republicans and maybe Joe Manchin, to make sure that he looks impartial on the court.

KURTZ: What about the partisan media split over this FBI investigation and President Trump eventually ordered, 10 people interviewed in total, didn't change anything. The optics were not great I think in terms of the agents not interviewing either Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Ford. But wasn't it all predictable and isn't the liberal and conservative media action predictable? If you want Kavanaugh, you like the FBI investigation, if you don't you save a chance.

FERRECHIO: That's legitimate. I saw the fact that there was an argument over how thorough this investigation was. It's a legitimate thing for the media to cover. They left out a bunch of witnesses that was put forward by Blasey Ford and Ramirez. And on the opposite side, you know, you had the beginning of this where they said this going to be a limited scope and not a fishing exhibition.

It just raise the question, how far should we go and looking into Kavanaugh. And that we're learning new things about thim of this, they said it would be a limited scope. Now that we are learning new things about him along the way, that was a legitimate thing. I thought the media was relatively fair in covering that aspect of it.

KURTZ: So much passion and sometimes ugly rhetoric on both sides. So for example, Fox fired contributor Kevin Jackson who has been on the air and called Kavanaugh accusers lying skanks. The network said that language was reprehensible. Have the media played an inflammatory role in what was already a raw and emotional debate that has deeply divided the country?

HEMINGWAY: They put forth stories that have no corroboration and they used them to smear someone and put this asterisk by his name. People say, oh, there is an asterisk. That is there for a reason. They were unprovable and undisprovable allegations put forth. There was flood the zone media coverage and the overall effort was done to delegitimize someone.

It reminds me very much of the Russia investigation that we also saw the media flood the zone and put forth stories that had no basis and facts, just to delegitimize a person. This is something that the media should not participate in. There is no daylight between Democratic partisan activity and media coverage, and that is deeply problematic.

REINES: Well, I think Mollie just hit the nail on the head in terms of the FBI. For a year and a half, the FBI has been horrible, evil institution according to Donald Trump. He fired the director, he fired the deputy director. He wants a number of other people fired. They are the deep state. Suddenly, they are the most precious institution of all time.

KURTZ: But what about Mollie's contention that there was no daylight between the Democrats who obviously were all geared up to protest, block, delay, do whatever they could to stop this nomination. And the media coverage of the allegations although, you know, once the democrats leaked Christine Blasey Ford's name to the press --

REINES: We don't know that.

KURTZ: Well, we don't know who did it.

REINES: OK.

KURTZ: OK. I don't see how you could not cover that. But what about the notion they essentially, media and the Democrats were in cahoots here?

REINES: I would say this. This comes down to he said-she said, but there is a difference in motivation. If you don't believe him, you are attributing certain understandable factors to that. Maybe he didn't remember. It was a long time ago. Maybe he was drinking. He wants the job. He's ashamed. If you don't believe her, you are saying this woman is just an outright liar.

HEMINGWAY: No. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and that is a very important value. You are not saying anything other than evidence must be provided before you can get someone.

FERRECHIO: You know the meaning of this, because it was really interesting, very interesting, they left out covering the problems with her testimony, so it just made it look like she was 100 percent believable rather than looking at the facts laid the way we would if we covered a criminal case in court.

We threw that aside and just said believable, believable, and then social media strung it all up and showed how there were big problems. And then RealClear Politics investigation all looked into the problems and gaps in her testimony that really called into question whether she was telling the truth or not or whether she was misremembering. Mainstream media did not cover that fairly or thoroughly and that was a big problem with this.

REINES: To impugn her credibility, you have to say she was paid by Soros, that she worked for the Clintons.

HEMINGWAY: It was to say she didn't provide any evidence to corroborate her accusations. And that is true --

REINES: She herself is a very compelling testimony.

HEMINGWAY: You can believe it if you want, but people need evidence.

KURTZ: I have got to get a break. Sorry guys. We'll try to continue this in the next segment. And ahead, a female journalist who are going public with painful stories, very painful stories of past sexual assault. When we come back, the media slamming the president for seeming to taunt Christine Blasey Ford. Is that fair?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: The press have actually been acknowledging that President Trump was unusually restrained in speaking respectfully about Christine Blasey Ford and her allegations of sexual assault when she was 15, until he unloaded at a rally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: What neighborhood was it, and I don't know. Where is the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it. I don't know, but I had one beer, that's the only thing I remember.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What the president did last night is sickening. Maybe we should only be surprised that it took him so long to do it.

GREG GUTFELD, FOX NEWS: The media is saying that Trump's comments about ford were mockery or an attack, are the same media who thought Matt Damon's ridiculing Kavanaugh was sparkling and brilliant and daring.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN: Now, we don't know if President Trump thinks it's useful to ridicule a woman claiming she was sexually assaulted or if he just did it because he thought it was fun. But let's take a moment to reflect that the president of the United States believes it's appropriate. There appears to be no bottom.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: You are mean, you are attacking victims, you don't have any empathy. No, he's making a series of common sense conclusions about Ford's very shaky claims and shifting accounts.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

KURTZ: As we just shown Mollie, (inaudible) really have that the president over this appearing to taunt Christine Ford in that fashion and especially given that many sexual assault victims don't remember all the details of what happened.

HEMINGWAY: Well, people kept saying in the media that he was taunting or he was mocking or he was ridiculing Christine Ford. What he was doing was pointing out what anybody could see when they watched her testimony, which is there were major holes, there were major flaws, there were contradictions.

And I actually thought that a lot of the media should have been pointing this out themselves. And you didn't see this. You didn't see people going through and looking at her story which changed over time, multiple times. They never were able to corroborate any aspect of it. They spent all their time looking at ice throwing at parties and yearbook things. And they should have been actually doing what he did there. They should have been pointing out that she had flaws in her testimonies.

KURTZ: Well, if you look at the transcript you could say yes, he's saying that if we're going to scrutinize, the media is going to -- the political system is going to scrutinize the nominee, let's look at the accuser, but the tone to me was unmistakably tone deaf.

FERRECHIO: We knew it was about the tone and the problem with the tone and all the things you are saying, Mollie, absolutely 100 percent true about missing the fair coverage of problems in her testimony. Then he was speaking also to people who believe her and who also have had their own experiences. So, it looks as though he is mocking them personally. And that is one of the problems with President Trump and his tone when he addresses problems like this that people interpret it one way and it's harmful. Simply harmful.

HEMINGWAY: He previously said he found her credible, which was much more than a lot of people thought when they first saw her testify.

KURTZ: Right. And he can get some credit for that.

FERRECHIO: It's reminiscent of when he was, remember he was mocking a "New York Times" reporter, and then you've explained that again. It just -- it doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

KURTZ: The reporter with disability. The president telling Judge Janine I had to even the playing field when he did that. Sarah Sanders and other White House officials telling reporters, no, no, no he wasn't mocking her, he was just stating the facts.

REINES: And Sarah Sanders was lying. I don't understand why Donald Trump - -

KURTZ: Why do you call it a lie? She is defending her boss.

REINES: Because -- OK, you want to defend you voice. I don't why you just can't say the president was making a point. And the point is what Mollie was saying. Mollie is conflating a legitimate conversation about this situation with Donald Trump just enjoying himself unnecessarily taunting someone.

HEMINGWAY: I think there is a thing they said that's what --

KURTZ: Let u s let Mollie respond.

HEMINGWAY: I think there is an issue where a lot of people don't understand Donald Trump's appeal. If he says the things --

REINES: I don't get it.

HEMINGWAY: -- that you were not supposed to say. It was almost silly how much deference people provided to Dr. Ford given that she had no corroboration for her allegations. He's been told you are not allowed to say anything, you are not allowed to point out that there is no substantiation for her story. He went ahead and did it and I think a lot of Americans were thinking why aren't more people saying this.

REINES: (Inaudible) appeal of it just because something is appealing to a crowd.

HEMINGWAY: Well, you should be able to say true things. You should be able to say true things and not be condemned for it.

REINES: I think there is a big gap between what he was doing and --

HEMINGWAY: He wasn't even using a mocking tone.

REINES: If you think of Donald Trump wasn't mocking the reporter with a disability --

KURTZ: He was.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMINGWAY: Actually, this is a good opportunity to say that too. Donald Trump did that mocking of that reporter, which he has done with many people. It was portrayed in the media as if he was mocking a reporter because of his disabilities. He actually used that same mocking tone with three or four other people who do not share that disability, and that was a very good example of a media lie about something important.

KURTZ: Let me use our last minute to ask you this question, Susan. There is a cultural debate here in the media (inaudible) in which the president is talking about it's a scary time for young men and they are in danger of having their lives ruined by uncorroborated allegations. What do you make, I mean, it's a fascinating debate being (inaudible) by everybody including the press.

FERRECHIO: Yes. And we talked about this before in the show. It's again, another gap in the media coverage, which is the MeToo Movement and even prior that, on campuses with the sexual assault so-called epidemic, that there is a lack of due process.

We have seen it with some high-profile cases and we've seen it in cases that aren't reported in the media but are reported on smaller blogs and things. And that has carried over into this where you have one person being accused and being found guilty before really any of the evidence is laid out.

KURTZ: Well, that debate will continue obviously and what is interesting to me the mainstream media with the kind of (inaudible) Susan Collins for her 45 minutes speech in favor of Judge Kavanaugh, but very happy with Lisa Murkowski for voting against the judge.

Ahead, Mika Brzezinski rips Kellyanne Conway for saying she is a sexual assault victim and then defending the president on Christine Ford. We will weigh in on that, but up next, the president pushes back on reporters trying to turn the presser on trade into a session of, of course, Brett Kavanaugh.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: President Trump got some grudging criticism from the press after striking a last minute trade deal with Canada to replace NAFTA. Even the "New York Times" acknowledged it was a win. So he staged a Rose Garden victory lap, took question on the agreement and then we saw him act like the reality show producer he once was. It began when he got into it with ABC's Cecilia Vega with a little swipe that the White House later inaccurately changed in the (inaudible).

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: OK, question? Yes, go ahead. Sure. She is shocked that I picked her. She's like in a state of shock.

CECILA VEGA, ABC NEWS: I am not thinking --

TRUMP: That's OK, I know you are not thinking, you never do.

VEGA: I'm sorry?

TRUMP: No, go ahead. Go ahead.

VEGA: In a tweet this weekend, Mr. President you said that it's incorrect to say you are limiting the scope of the FBI investigation.

TRUMP: What is that have to do with trade? I don't mind answering the question, but you know, I'd like to do the trade questions.

VEGA: It has to do with the other headline in the news which is the Kavanaugh nomination.

TRUMP: I know, but how about talking about trade and then we'll get to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Of course the reporters were fare more interested in Kavanaugh but Trump handled this like a cable show. Hold on, hold on, we are still in the A block. Trade is the A block. We'll get to Kavanaugh, but that's the B block. I'm still doing trade. I'll tell you when. And he stuck to that with CNN's Kaitlan Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN: Now that you've been through several questions on trade I'd like to turn to Judge Kvanaugh --

TRUMP: Don't do that. Excuse me. Do you have a question on Trade? We'll do one or two more questions on trade.

COLLINS: You answered several questions --

TRUMP: Don't do that. That's not nice. And besides, somebody is before you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So he actually made Kaitlan Collins pass the mic to another reporter even as he made a joke that people are falling asleep with trade and stayed with the topic until as promised, taking a number of questions about the Kavanaugh battle including from her.

The New York Times, ran a gargantuan piece (inaudible) printed today. Eight full pages of news -- look at this -- saying Donald Trump inherited far more money than he's admitted from his father, Fred Trump, the housing developer and that they at time committed tax fraud by hiding massive gifts through shell corporations.

The president called it, "A very old, boring and often told hit piece on me -- boring is sort of his worst form of criticism -- but neither he nor the White House disputed a single fact. It was an impressive journalistic effort that included many confidential documents, but even the "Times" acknowledged that the IRS had never challenged the Trumps on any of this.

And it's hardly shocking that rich people are very aggressive when it comes to minimizing their taxes. Coming up, the political comments for the Washington Post speaks out about a long ago sexual assault and she's got plenty of company now in the media, politics and entertainment. She'll be here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: As more female journalists are speaking out about past sexual assault including one of our next guests, the spotlight has also fallen on Kellyanne Conway, who last week told CNN's Jake Tapper that she, too, has been the victim of a sexual assault. But when the White House counselor defended the president's sharp words about Christine Blasey Ford, she drew a tougher view from one of her frequent critics, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONWAY: She has been treated like a Faberge egg by all of us beginning with me and the president, who is pointing out factual inconsistencies.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: Tell us your story, who is your attacker, who broke the law, who hurt you. You were really uncomfortable just saying I am a victim of sexual assault. And you know what, I say that as a victim of sexual assault myself. So I want to ask, why can't you be the egg, Kellyanne, the Faberge egg, and tell your story?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about the cultural debate surrounding women and sexual assault, Karen Tumulty, columnist for the Washington Post, a long-time reporter, and Emily Jashinsky, cultural editor at The Federalist. So, Emily, Mika took a lot of heat from some other pundits over her sharp criticisms, some of it was based on kind of a distorted clip headline on media. Mika Brzezinski challenges Kellyanne Conway to reveal details of a very convenient sexual assault. Your take on the criticism?

EMILY JASHINSKY, THE FEDERALIST: You know, I think the criticism was deserved for the most of part. You can kind of follow her logic. What she's saying is that if you are going to cover for his president, you don't -- you can't use your sexual assault as a way to sort of enhance your coverage to give it more credibility than it is.

KURTZ: How can Mika be saying that? She said that she was -- that Kellyanne says she was talking about the whole process of questioning Christine Ford.

JASHINSKY: Yeah, she was also saying that if you're -- if she is being treated like a Faberge egg, then you should come forward, of course, and name your alleged attacker because it's so easy. And that's what she's saying. But at the same time, I think what people hate about where we are right now in this conversation about Me Too and sexual assault is the way it's gotten so politicized and nasty and personal.

KURTZ: Right.

JASHINSKY: And I do think Brzezinski was feeding on that. It was an unfortunate moment, I thought.

KURTZ: Well, Karen, Mika Brzezinski, who is a fierce critic of Trump and her one-time friend Kellyanne Conway, back at Morning Joe, where she was a White House guest in about a year and a half, told me she would never push a woman to describe her sexual assault, or could give the details. But she was saying it's not easy to do it before the cameras.

KAREN TUMULTY, WASHINGTON POST: And that's actually was how I heard it. And then, it's interesting though because the social media blowback started right away. And I think that Mika also recognized that she had not awarded this point the way she intended to. So she really -- she went back on the air, the same show within minutes, and I think made the point she was trying to make a little more clearly.

KURTZ: Well, in our interview, Mike Brzezinski told me about the sexual assault. And I repeat this with her permission. She said this happened when she was 14, she was riding a horse in McClean, Virginia, and was attacked in the woods at gunpoint. The stranger pulled her off the horse, took off his pants, mauled her, pistol whipped her. As she was screaming, she end up covered in blood. Absolutely, a horrifying experience, but she understands that not everybody is comfortable talking about that.

And, Karen, you went on Twitter this week, in the past week, and you disclosed for the first time an assault when you were a child. Explain.

TUMULTY: Well -- and this was in -- a number of things going on here. It was a not -- because I wanted to weigh in whether or not Brett Kavanaugh had done the things that he was accused of, but president had raised the point, if this assault was as bad as Christine Ford said it was, surely, she would have told her as he puts it sort of sneeringly, her loving parents and there would have been a police report.

KURTZ: Police, yes.

TUMULTY: And that spawned a hashtag, you know, why I didn't report. And that for me really struck home. Not just in this context, but also in the context of the Catholic Church. I'm a Catholic. That you know why are these reports coming out now, so much -- so long after it happened?

KURTZ: And so, explain for people who didn't read it what you...

TUMULTY: Well, what happened to me when I was 9 years old, and I was at a birthday party, given Mika's experience, at a riding stable. The man who ran the stable sort of pulled me away from the little girls at the birthday party and molested me. This was something that even though my parents who were loving parents, I do not know that I could have come forward on this, if my parents were still alive. But even though they had had the conversation with me, I somehow thought that I must have done something wrong you know for this to have happened to me. So I kept that as my secret.

And I have got to tell you, you know, 9-year-old Karen felt she couldn't tell anybody, 20-year-old Karen was very remorseful that I hadn't told anybody, because I realized, you know, a riding stable, those are full of little girls. If this man did this to me...

KURTZ: You were on the stable?

TUMULTY: Yes. He must have done it just so many other little girls. But again, it was just not something my 9-year-old brain could process.

KURTZ: Right.

TUMULTY: And so, when we have people as powerful as the president saying this can't be as bad as these women say it is because they didn't report it, I think it doesn't really understand what happened.

KURTZ: Well, Emily, I want to play some sound for you because a number of women have written pieces in the air. Let's here some of that starting with long-time former CBS anchor Connie Chung.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONNIE CHUNG, FORMER CBS ANCHOR: I, too, was sexually assaulted. Not 36 years ago, but about 50 years ago. The molester was our trusted family doctor. Am I sure who did it, oh, yes, 100 percent.

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I had internalized the idea that because I had gone the drunk, I kind of deserved what happened to me. And that it was somehow my fault. What happened to me was basically, I passed out, and somebody molested me. It wasn't really considered sexual assault at the time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Kirsten Powers. And so, is it healthy for the debate that women are now talking about this very painful, what happened to them or do you think that some of these pieces and some of these confessions were an effort to turn public opinion against Brett Kavanaugh.

JASHINSKY: Two things.

KURTZ: OK.

JASHINSKY: Not only is it healthy, but it's critical. This reminds me a lot of the first wave of Me Too last October, when we're hearing so many stories that took so many women. It took so much strength for so many women to share. And so, the prevalence of this problem is what was originally spotlighted by Me Too. And oh, my gosh, not only healthy, but critical.

The second point, you know, I think every woman has a right to do what she wants to do with her own story. So I think there are a lot of -- you know, a lot of women who came forward probably don't support Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. I don't care because they have the right to say what they have to say, and use their story as they want to use it. That's perfectly fine.

KURTZ: And, Karen, you made the point that you don't remember some of the details. And that's hardly unusual. And talk a little about the reaction you got on Twitter from other women who had experiences.

TUMULTY: It was extraordinary a number of women who replied to my tweet saying oh, my gosh, almost the exact same thing happened to me, except it was my grandfather or it was an older man at a barn. It was astonishing.

KURTZ: Some said they were 20, some said they were 15, some say were as young as 5.

TUMULTY: Yes.

KURTZ: Yeah.

TUMULTY: And there were dozens of these reactions. And I think you know even here at Fox, Chris Wallace, talking about how he had these conversations with his own daughters for the first time. Even if -- even if you are a diligent parent, these things can happen to your children, to your young adults out there. And it's not an easy conversation to have.

KURTZ: Yeah, which is why anybody who is willing to do it, and you told me even your own brother was shocked to hear this, after all these years. So, Karen Tumulty, thank you for sharing this story. Emily Jashinsky, thanks for being here as always.

Next on Media Buzz, many in the media embrace the claims of the second and third Kavanaugh accusers, why new evidence suggests that may have been a mistake.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: The media gave kinds of attention to Julie Swetnick, who not coincidentally is Michael Avenatti's client when she made allegations about attending a whole series of high school parties were claimed Brett Kavanaugh was essentially complicit in gang rape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you describe to me what you saw him do?

JULIE SWETNICK, KAVANAUGH ACCUSER: He was very aggressive, very sloppy, very sloppy drunk, very mean drunk. I saw him go up to girls and paw on them, try to get you know a little too handsy, touching them in private parts. I saw him try to shift clothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: A little too handsy. In other words, Swetnick backed off the gang rape insinuations. It is NBC's Kate Snow pointed out Swetnick originally said, she saw Kavanaugh spike the punch with drugs or alcohols at these parties. But in the interview, she just said, well, he was near the punch. Joining us now, Sarah Fisher, a media reporter for Axios. So why didn't NBC and other media outlets then ran story saying hey, Julie Swetnick is backing off her key allegations and she appears less credible?

SARAH FISHER, AXIOS: I don't think it was made clear enough by people who carry the story later on that her allegations were not the same as her written statement. Why didn't they do it? There seems to have been a media pile on every time this new allegation, all media want to claim around it was what does this mean, what does this mean for Kavanaugh.

But instead, what they should be doing is acknowledging the fact that hey, this story might not be as credible as we might think it is.

KURTZ: And so, it is something in context laws when just sound bytes are played and you don't have the case saying well, she did change her story, a couple of key elements.

FISHER: That's right. When they first reported this on a show, she said, look, there are some big differences between her written statement and what she told me in this sit-down interview. And you can see in parts of the interview that she looks a little bit skeptical. When you take sound bytes from that interview, when you play them on other shows, they go on other networks, that context is lost. And so, you don't have the very important context that says look, this might not be as credible as it is when we played elsewhere.

KURTZ: Yeah, I think the media were played by Michael Avenatti who didn't really answer many questions about it, and of course got 100,000 times more attention because of him.

All right. So the New Yorker and Ronan Farrow ran that story on the second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a Yale party, even after she admitted she had gaps in her memory, she had to consult a lawyer, she wasn't sure then she was sure. And so, the only source -- other source that Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer have is the second answer -- she heard this, about this, from someone else.

In a follow-up piece, they named the Yale student was the secondary source, tracked down the classmate. This guy told him -- and that classmate said he had no memory of that incident. So what does that tell us about the piece?

FISHER: I mean, it tells us that there that there is some credibility that can be walking with that original piece. If you're the New Yorker, this is a tough position. You want to make sure you're reporting anyone who is coming forward, you want to make sure you're getting that story out. But if you're not telling it in full context, well, the meaning of it is lost. And we're seeing now a lot of people looking back at the second story where they're saying, oh, we can't get in touch with the person who said they didn't remember.

KURTZ: Yeah.

FISHER: And it's really causing credibility problems for the first story. So the New Yorker is going to have -- you know, kind of find a way to tie this all together to give the due context that there might be some holes here.

KURTZ: Yeah. I mean, I just think that while the New Yorker was transparent about the holes and the problems with this particular accuser in terms of her memory, I would question whether it should have been run at all. Obviously, this was ran under great pressure because Kavanaugh was on the verge of being confirmed.

FISHER: Yeah. And that's one of the things we have to look all the time. Look, there is a flood effect here. So many news outlets want to get on top of the story, so they're eager to publish things out. But sometimes, you have to take a step back and say, it is even worth publishing.

KURTZ: Yeah. New York Times has a huge amount of pressure, a story about a 1985 bar fight, in which Kavanaugh threw ice at a guy, starting a scuffle in which the guy was hospitalized, he was bleeding because a classmate threw a glass at him. Kavanaugh was questioned by police, but not further. Is this worthy of a new story?

FISHER: Look, it might have been worthy of a new story, if it kind of demonstrates something about his character. He is going to be on the highest court of our country. So we need to know about his character. But it shouldn't have been...

KURTZ: It was 33 years ago, it was a bar fight. Anyone that have ever been in a bar fight, therefore is disqualified?

FISHER: No, it doesn't mean that, but I do think that anyone who wants to come forward with more stories that is going to tell a little bit more about his personality, I get that. What I don't get here is why you have opinion writers, somebody who has tweeted opinions about Brett Kavanaugh contributing to a new story.

KURTZ: Well, let me explain that because the co-author on the story, it was a New York Times' news story, Emily Bazelon who is a liberal op-ed writer for the paper, she also works as a staffer in the magazine, she is a lecturer at Yale. She is very smart and she is very liberal, she doesn't make bones about that. And she had tweeted that she opposed the Kavanaugh nomination, this was so much earlier because he is fifth vote for a hard right turn on voting rights and so much more that would harm the democratic process.

And let me just briefly the Times' statement, I have put it up at the screen. Emily Bazelon is a writer from the New York Times' magazine. As I have said, she occasionally writes op-ed in the opinion section. She is not a news reporter. Her role in the story was to help colleagues in newsroom, gather public documents, ran this base. In retrospect, editors should have used a newsroom reporter for that assignment. You think?

FISHER: Absolutely. I mean, come on, there was never an incidence where someone from the opinion team should be contributing to news gathering stories on the news side. It's already really complicated enough for viewers to distinguish news from opinions in the digital age. This just makes it worse.

KURTZ: Right. If you think that's a legitimate story reporting, personally, I think it was an effort to chip away Kavanaugh's credibility by showing he had a drinking problem. But then, have a reporter do it and not somebody who does opinions for a living.

FISHER: Exactly right. And then, yeah, the bar fight, it could be question whether or not that's even worth the publishing to begin with.

KURTZ: All right. No bar fight here. Sarah Fisher, thanks very much. Great to see you this Sunday.

Still to come, leading conservatives complain of the Washington Post and one of its conservative columnists isn't -- well, conservative. Is this a bigger problem in the Trump era? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: Jennifer Rubin billed as a center right opinion columnist for the Washington Post is now featured as an MSNBC contributor whose views are strikingly anti-Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER RUBIN, WASHINGTON POST: Every president reminds me of someone. Ronald Reagan was dad, this guy reminds you of your abusive ex-husband.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: More than three dozen leaders on the writer urging the Post in a letter to stop labeling Rubin as a conservative because quote, it is nearly impossible to discern any conservatism in Rubin's contemporary writing. I went back with Mollie. So, why all of this attention, you were right about this -- to Jennifer Rubin, who cares what the Post calls her?

HEMINGWAY: Well, I think when there is frustration that when there are almost no conservatives at the Washington Post that they would call someone like Jennifer Rubin a conservative, when at least for the last couple of years, she has reversed all of her former conservative positions whether it's her opposition to the Iran deal, her beliefs on whether Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel, with our embassy being there, Paris Climate accord, conservative justices. And Donald Trump has taken the position she used to hold, she has turned against them, because she is strenuously anti-Trump. That's fine. But to be bill her as a conservative or a center-right columnist when she is not, people find it very frustrating.

KURTZ: Well, the Post gave me a statement saying it is committed to a variety of voices and opinions in sections. They've added people like Marc Theissen and Hugh Hewitt, and sometimes people from The Federalist, but didn't address. We questioned Jennifer Rubin, but she declined to comment.

So let's broaden this. When you look at the Washington Post opinion pages, people like George Will, New York Times, Brett Stevens, David Brooks, smart people don't like the president. On MSNBC, Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough are anti-Trump, you have Hugh Hewitt, he is pro-Trump, he lost his show. Why is that -- what does it say about the way in which the opinion media deal with the conservative?

HEMINGWAY: Right. Whether you are looking at newspapers, you're looking at TV shows, overwhelmingly, if someone is billed as a conservative contributor, they are never-Trump faction, which is important because that's almost not existent outside of the airwaves and outside of the newspapers. The vast majority of Republicans are supportive of President Trump. You know, 90 percent or more, he's one of the most of popular Republican president among Republicans in history. And you don't see that represented on the airwaves or in newspapers.

KURTZ: Well, you are saying there are almost no serious conservatives in America who have a lot of serious columns on how Donald Trump has performed?

HEMINGWAY: So according to the polls, Republican voters are overwhelmingly happy with Donald Trump. You don't see that reflected in a lot of the conversation and analysis. And you see a predominance of never-Trump conservatives. Even on this network, you see way out-representing their actual numerical numbers. And you hear people say, oh, we just can't find anyone who is Trump supportive, who is a good writer.

Well, that doesn't make sense on two accounts. One, you see a lot of the weak thinking and weak writing in the anti-Trump movement that does get published. And also, I publish hundreds of people all the time ranging from never-Trump to very-Trump supportive. They're strong writers and there are so many people you can pick and choose.

KURTZ: Just to clarify, Jennifer Rubin on her Twitter page calls herself a conservative. You're not saying you can't be a conservative and also opposed Donald Trump?

HEMINGWAY: No, there are certainly people who identify as conservative who oppose Donald Trump. And most of them you see on TV and newspapers at the Post.

KURTZ: Why is there a gap? Why is there such a -- you would say, a misrepresentation of a chunk of conservative opinion through the media opinion outlets.

HEMINGWAY: I think because most people are based in D.C. and New York, which is the headquarters of never-Trump conservatism. It's not represented in much of the rest of the country. It's overwhelmingly represented here. He's a very disruptive force, not just for D.C., but for the conservative movement as well.

KURTZ: Mollie Hemingway, great to see you as always. Thanks for doing double duty today.

And that is it for this edition of "Media Buzz." I'm Howard Kurtz. Check out my new podcast, "Media Buzz Meter." Mollie comes on one day a week. We kick around today's five most important or fascinating stories. And you can subscribe, Apple iTunes, Google Play, and FoxNewsPodcast.com. Let's continue the conversation on Twitter @howardkurtz. And we hope you will like our Facebook page. I post my daily columns there and some original videos as well.

The last few weeks on this program, I mean, it's been pretty raw. I'm pretty emotional as we, the media, the country had dealt with the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. I'm glad the battle is finally over, but as we have said earlier, it's actually not over in terms of media debate.

Back here next Sunday, 11 a.m. Eastern, we'll see you then with the latest buzz.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.