Trump calls Russia probe piece 'insulting'

close

Video

Trump calls Russia probe piece 'insulting'

N.Y. times says FBI found no evidence of secret ties

This is a rush transcript from "Media Buzz," January 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: On the Buzz Meter this Sunday, in a fierce confrontation over the border wall, President Trump says the press has gone bonkers, while many in the media have come out and accused the president of lying even before he gave his Oval Office speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a president who will go on TV tonight and lie and lie and lie some more.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: So as we wait for the president to speak about what he calls a crisis on the border, we're starting with the crisis of credibility he has created for himself.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: It's almost as if the public can't even hear what the president has to say because around the issue of border security, there has been built a wall - a wall of misinformation. A wall of lies.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: The Democratic Party and its unpaid operatives in the news media will make their case, too. In fact, they're not waiting for 9:00 p.m. to do that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: And the scathing reviews continued as soon as the nine-minute address was over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: I think there are a half-dozen things that are wrong, falsehoods, lies. But the big scam of the whole address is there is a crisis. There is not a crisis.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think that address probably should have come with a surgeon general's warning. It was hazardous to the truth.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: You just witnessed the president make a powerful, compelling case for the wall on our southern border. This is a national emergency. The situation is now dire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Is the mainstream press moving from adversarial to accusatory as the government shutdown enters its fourth week? Did a network anchor break the rules by leaking Trump's comments in an off-the-record White House luncheon?

And what about The New York Times saying the FBI had opened the probe of whether Donald Trump was acting as a Russian agent but found no evidence. A media explosion over Michael Cohen testifying before Congress next month, but are journalists raising expectations too high?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apologizes to Donald Trump Jr. and picks a fight with, yes, the media's fact checkers. Is the freshman congresswoman starting to get burned by the spotlight?

Plus, Amazon chief and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos undergoing the biggest divorce in history as The National Enquirer reports on an affair with a former TV anchor. Given the president's criticism of Bezos, was he targeted by the tabloid owned by Trump's pal?

I'm Howard Kurtz and this is Media Buzz.

President Trump is pushing back against two major investigative pieces that are breaking this weekend. The New York Times, the FBI once launched a counterintelligence probe. This was right after the Jim Comey firing into whether Donald Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.

The Washington Post, Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Vladimir Putin from senior administration officials.

Joining us now to analyze the coverage: Beverly Hallberg, president of District Media Group and a former TV and radio producer; Emily Jashinsky, culture editor at The Federalist; and Richard Fowler, radio talk show host and Fox News contributor.

Emily, The New York Times story says that days after the Comey firing, according to sources, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interest but nothing was found. Big story?

EMILY JASHINSKY, CULTURE EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: So, I searched this link on Twitter this morning to see what various journalists were saying about it. I have to say there is this incredible eagerness among journalists to see this more as an indictment of Donald Trump than of the FBI.

You get nine paragraphs down into The New York Times report and there is a note right there that says there is no public evidence that has emerged to suggests that Donald Trump has been -- was taking direction from the Russian government. Nine paragraphs --

KURTZ: Yes, I counted them as well. Good math on your part.

(LAUGHTER)

KURTZ: Let me ask Richard. The president called into Judge Jeanine Pirro show on Fox last night and he said of this New York Times story. I think it's the most insulting article I've ever had written. If you read the article, you'll see they found absolutely nothing.

Here is the ninth paragraph. No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. Your thoughts?

RICHARD FOWLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Couple of things. I think it all comes down to what's in the Mueller investigation, what's in the Mueller report. This was one investigation. I think --

KURTZ: Mueller has now taken over.

FOWLER: Right, Mueller has taken all over. Remember that the FBI is sort of -- two parts. Part of it is counterintelligence. They work to make sure they protect our trade secrets and they protect all others. The other part is criminal. The counterintelligence investigation is very different from a criminal investigation.

KURTZ: It's a real shocker when you think about it, but on the other hand, graded as a news story. How important is it? FOWLER: I don't think any of this -- when you think of all of the news stories regarding Russia, I don't think any of them are of any importance because the Mueller team has not leaked anything, number one.

KURTZ: Right.

FOWLER: And number two, if it is not based on a court filing from the Mueller report or from the Mueller team, I give it a little bit less credibility.

KURTZ: OK.

FOWLER: Mueller is where the credibility lives.

KURTZ: Beverly, The Washington Post story says the president on several occasions concealed the details of his face-to-face encounters with Vladimir Putin. On one occasion, taking possession of the note his own interpreter -- his own interpreter had and instructing the interpreter not to discuss what transpired with other administration officials. That's very unusual but how damaging is it? Emily talked about the narrative -- media narrative.

BEVERLY HALLBERG, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT MEDIA GROUP: I think it's damaging from media narrative for this reason. So I think when Trump says that there has been no collusion and that of course is what mainstream media wants to attack him to, he doesn't help himself out by having notes not recorded of these meetings.

I understand that for national security, we don't want everything released to the media. But if he really wants to help himself out, plenty of these meetings were recorded with Putin. He did have Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state, come out.

But I think for his own credibility in these stories that continue to come out, they want to damage him based on some supposed collusion and connection with Russia, he should realize that and be above bar and realize I got to be careful with this.

KURTZ: OK, but here is a reason why president may not want to share details, very deep in the stories, reference to it, worried about leaks. The story itself is an example of that as is all those stories that were leaked about his phone conversations with world leaders, Australia, Mexico. Sometimes, transcripts were released.

Maybe he just doesn't trust the people around him. President told Jeanine Pirro, I don't care, I'm happy to have this stuff released.

All right, let's go back to all the media hypes surrounding the Oval Office address. What did you make as we saw at the top of commentators and anchors, not just commentators, accusing the president of outright lying before he even delivers his speech?

(LAUGHTER)

JASHINSKY: Well, it's just sort of this perfect exhibition of the media's treatment of Donald Trump, right, which is that they assume all of these various things about Donald Trump. And in some cases, he absolutely does have problems trafficking straight facts. There is no question about that and it's absolutely true. KURTZ: One quick example, he said that the former president supported him on the border wall. All living ex-presidents have come out and said that that's not true.

JASHINSKY: Right. There are clear cut examples. But when they do things like this, they muddy the waters in a way that is not helpful to the public. The fact checking of the speech before and after was so unhelpful. I literally could not believe what I ran in The New York Times fact check.

Some of the fact checks were unbelievable. The things that they rated misleading, you know, like how ex-number (ph) illegal aliens have crossed the border --

FOWLER: Some of the things -- some things in that message were misleading. First of all, the president --

JASHINSKY: I don't dispute that.

FOWLER: The president said that the Mexico is going to pay for this wall, and then he gave some convoluted example --

JASHINSKY: Absolutely.

FOWLER: -- of if we pass this trade deal which is not done, has not been ratified, all of a sudden, the U.S. Treasury is going to come up with $25 billion to pay for the wall.

JASHINSKY: Absolutely true.

FOWLER: And that's not factual.

JASHINSKY: I agree.

KURTZ: Since you brought that up, we actually have the soundbite. This is going out of order, folks. And so here is what the president said about, you know, after repeatedly saying during the campaign, we can play the tape all day long, Mexico will play for the wall. Here is what he had to say, challenging news reports on that subject.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I know the fake news like to say it, when during the campaign, I would say, Mexico is going to pay for it. Obviously, I never said this and I never meant they're going to write out a check. I said they are going to pay for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Well, now he said this. The trade deal which is indirect. OK, so, that's a bit of a stretch and he's blaming the press. But at the same time, journalists should hold the press accountable, should point out inconsistencies, misrepresentations.

HALLBERG: Absolutely.

KURTZ: But what's going on now with all the lying being thrown, it seems to be on a whole different level.

HALLBERG: Oh, there is a complete double standard. Let's remind ourselves, this was the first Oval Office address. There were even discussions whether or not they want to cover it, to even begin with --

KURTZ: What did you think of that? The fact that there was this debate about whether the president should get air time --

HALLBERG: Why would there be a debate?

KURTZ: -- and journalists would come on and say, well, we shouldn't even carry it because we know he's going to lie, or we shouldn't carry it live, we should first point out all the lies.

HALLBERG: Because this is what it is. It is more about they hate him so much. The office of the presidency should deserve the respect of this being taped and being recorded, being covered. You would never hear this by President Obama. This is his first Oval Office address.

I actually think one of the reasons why they decided to cover it was so that they could check about the wall of misinformation, the term that they use, and Democrats use it as well, but also because you have the rebuttal by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

So, they figured this would be good TV. But I think this should have been, given it is a seven-minute address, you show this because it is such a concerning issue in the country.

FOWLER: Beverly, in most I agree. I think that the president -- the president's Oval Office address should be covered by all the news outlets. The difference here is this was not a unifying address. Remember when George W. Bush --

(CROSSTALK)

FOWLER: There is a distinction. When you sit behind the resolute desk and you give a national address --

KURTZ: You're criticizing speech and that's fine. You have every right to criticize a speech. But we are talking about whether he should have gotten nine minutes of broadcast network air time.

FOWLER: Here is the problem with this. I think networks question whether or not they should give him broadcast coverage and the reason being is because it was not addressed like George W. Bush's 9/11 address, we all got to come together, here is what's happening next. This is a campaign speech that he gave for seven minutes --

KURTZ: All right --

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: -- your own point. But let me go on to another soundbite. The president of course had a subsequent meeting with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. He walked out. There is a dispute about the facts. Here is the soundbite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I didn't pound the table. I didn't raise my voice. That was a lie. I don't have temper tantrums. I really don't. But it play to his narrative. But it's a lie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So he is blaming the fake news there and the media narrative. But this not anonymous sources say. By the way, there is no dispute he walked out. He said he said bye-bye, didn't pound the table.

JASHINSKY: Right.

KURTZ: They were quoting the Democratic leaders on the record, journalists were.

JASHINSKY: Absolutely. I think that is the key here. That is perfectly newsworthy when it is on the record from two sources that happened to be leaders of -- the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate. So I think it is fair. I don't know if it's true, but I think it's fair and I think it's fair for the president to come on the record and rebut it, absolutely.

KURTZ: OK. There has been a media freak out over the president saying and almost making it imminent that he is going to use emergency powers to get funding from other agencies, namely the military, to fund the wall. And then for now, he says he is not going to do that.

Lindsey Graham said he spoke to the president this morning, went on Fox News Sunday and said he rather make a deal. But do you think the media criticism to this, including from National Review about a stretch of executive power that would be, may have been a factor in the president's decision to hold off at least for now?

FOWLER: I think that was -- I think it was a big deal. Not only did he have criticism from different conservative press, but he also have criticism from senators on the House, Republicans, like, you cannot do this because we all know if you want to get money for this wall, come to Congress, and actually let's make a deal.

There is room for a deal to be done, but the president has to be willing to move off of this idea that he is going to get $5 billion for his wall not matter what.

KURTZ: Right. There may be a deal to be made but both sides are petty dug in right now. What Republicans are saying is, if you use your powers to declare an emergency (INAUDIBLE) stop a Democratic president from doing that for some liberal priorities.

Let me get a break. Ahead, what is behind the National Enquirer investigating Jeff Bezos's personal life? When we come back, president has an off-the-record meeting with networks anchors and gets burned by a leak.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: President Trump had an off-the-record luncheon with network anchors and executives on the day of his Oval Office speech and someone leaked words to The New York Times that he said the address and the border visit were "not going to change a damn thing, but I'm still doing it." And pointing to Bill Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, added, "but these people behind you think it's worth it."

I asked Peter Baker, the Times White House correspondent, who wrote the story about the leak and he told me, "it's our job to try to convince people who are in closed-door meetings at the White House to tell us what happens inside and that's true whether those people are White House officials, members of Congress or other journalists. These stories end up being revealing because they get past the talking points and provide more insight for readers."

Emily Jashinsky, does President Trump have a legitimate piece (ph) that a network anchor or somebody in that room betrayed him by dishing to the Times about the conversation?

JASHINSKY: Absolutely, although at the same time, I don't think it's something that he would never have expected to happen, of course. I mean, he's sitting in the room --

KURTZ: Room full of journalists.

JASHINSKY: -- full of journalists, and I believe a source has quoted in the report, people briefed on the meeting. So I don't know what that means. But, it's -- I mean, of course, these are journalists, obviously most aren't fans of him, it's going to leak.

And what's interesting about this is it is something I can see the president saying on the record anyway. We don't know --

KURTZ: That part is true.

JASHINSKY: -- how much ingest it was because he loves to do this.

KURTZ: Yeah. I am actually told the tone was a little bit lighter. It was sort of like, those geniuses think the speeches are really going to be great. But at the same time, the president tweeted about this, about the off-the-record. He said, "who would believe how bad it has gotten with the mainstream media, which has gone totally bonkers"

So Beverly, I have reported on off-the-record meetings at the White House in which journalists were involved because I wasn't bound by any agreement. But I did think that, man, if I was in the room, I wouldn't tell anybody about it because you're giving your word that you are going to play by those rules unless the White House, as sometimes happens, agrees to put it on background, agrees to put it on the record.

HALLBERG: Yeah, they completely broke the ethics rules that you expect journalists to have. I think it puts him in a bad position because if you actually do want to get good information so you can write better stories, you are going to find more and more people, not just the president but any high-up officials that you interview.

If they're constantly worried about leaks, they're not going to come straight forward with what's going on. This is damaging for what it means for the media, and I think the president has a point that leaks happen.

JASHINSKY: The rest of the reporters in that room should be furious with the people who leaked --

HALLBERG: Absolutely.

JASHINSKY: -- because it makes future off-the-records less likely to happen.

KURTZ: Interesting you should say that, because I talked to my Fox News colleague Bret Baier about it. He was in the luncheon. He is very upset about it. He says this is horrible. He said that a reporter from another organization approached him, trying to, like, went on (ph) behind while you're eating the salad, and he wouldn't discuss it at all. And he made the point that the White House might stop doing this.

Now, some people think you shouldn't have off-the-record. Journalists find it useful. It's a whole tradition on state of the union speeches to find out what the president is thinking.

I also reached out to other anchors about this, Chuck Todd of NBC, Chris Cuomo of CNN, told me they couldn't discuss it because the meeting was off- the-record.

So this comes now to the question of if you're going to go eat the meal and accept the ground rules, then can you turn around and dish what was on the menu?

FOWLER: I don't think -- I mean, I actually agree with Bret Baier on this. I don't think you can. I think those meetings are private. They should be held sacred. I remember my days in the Obama White House of being one of the people that got (ph) to speeches early.

But even -- there is a risk that every White House takes when you make decisions like that. When you give a whole bunch of surrogates to speech early, parts of it might get out, and that is the risk that every White House takes.

And so you know what is going to happen when you were invited with people (ph) in the room to begin with, even though they shouldn't do it.

KURTZ: Right. What you don't want -- I mean, what the White House does want is for journalists to be a little bit more for him and saying, well, the thinking in the White House is or the emphasis on the speech is.

If you're not going to hear (ph) exactly what the president said in what might or might not be a light moment, then I think, you know, he has a right to -- he said bonkers. He said a lot of things about journalists, but bonkers, that is going to number 11.

JASHINSKY: But that's a good example of why this is a needless gift of ammunition (ph) to Donald Trump.

KURTZ: Right.

JASHINSKY: Make the press look like fake news, liars. We are going to break this agreement. It did not have to happen. They could have go gotten him to say this on the record.

FOWLER: Emily is correct. I think this does feed into the president's narrative, false narrative of the fake news media because I think there is really hardworking journalists at the White House that do the best job possible to cover the facts, and when they get clouded by this, this is what creates the problems.

HALLBERG: I personally think he enjoys it because it actually proves his point about leaking. I think he likes to get off there on Twitter. So, even though he says he is upset with the leak, I think there is an aspect to this that plays into it.

KURTZ: We have a rare sort of moment of consensus. Beverly Hallberg, Emily Jashinsky, Richard Fowler, great to see you all this Sunday.

Ahead, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apologizes from mouthing off about Donald Trump Jr. Is the congresswoman becoming her own worst enemy? But up next, we will shine the spotlight on a whole series of media mistakes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: It has been a bad week for mistakes and misjudgments by the media. It was obviously news when ABC reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who is overseeing the Mueller investigation plans to resign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Multiple sources telling us that Rosenstein has communicated to the White House and the president that he plans to leave the administration around the time that Trump's attorney general nominee, William Burr, would be confirmed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: CNN has learned that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who launched and has overseen Robert Mueller's Russia investigation for more than a year now, will leave the Justice Department in the coming weeks after a new attorney general is confirmed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fox News can't confirmed that man overseeing the Mueller investigation, as you mentioned, Deputy General Rod Rosenstein, will depart in the coming weeks around the time that his -- the president's pick for attorney general, William Burr, is confirmed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: But that mean Mueller could still be operating without the man who appointed him. Not so fast. NBC and other media outlets later quoted sources as saying Rosenstein wasn't leaving so quickly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our indications are that Rosenstein would not leave until he was confident that the Mueller investigation was done or nearly done.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: If the deputy A.G. stays on until the end of the Mueller probe, that's a very different story. When Paul Manafort's lawyers screwed up the redaction of a court filing, news outlets learned of the Mueller charge that the president's former campaign chairman had shared confidential internal polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence, a sign of possible collusion.

But The New York Times also said Manafort had asked that the confidential polling be passed on to a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin, Oleg Deripaska. Well, that was wrong. The Times ran a correction saying Manafort wanted the data sent to wealthy guys in Ukraine further removed obviously from Vladimir Putin's inner circle.

The Daily Caller ran a pretty inflammatory headline about the freshman Democratic congresswoman who is getting so much media attention. Here is the photo some people describe as a nude selfie of Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez. What? Nude selfie?

The story itself said the bogus bathtub photos were not of the congresswoman but of Sydney Leathers. She is the one who once engaged in an erotic correspondence with Anthony Weiner.

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted about the fake nude photo, calling it, it's posting completely disgusting behavior from conservative outlets. The Daily Caller changed the headline, saying, we regret the error as the intent was to inform our audience that a fake image was circulating online. But the headline was pure clickbait.

Ahead on Media Buzz, what Jeff Bezo's blockbuster divorce will mean for Amazon, perhaps the Washington Post. But first, a media frenzy over Michael Cohen testifying before Congress next month. Why it may not be that big of a blockbuster.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: News that Micheal Cohen will testify before a House committee next month has caught just an absolute media explosion from pundits who can't wait to hear from Donald Trump's former lawyer before he goes off to prison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Spilling his guts, telling everything he knows about President Trump. Micheal Cohen is going to testify publicly on television.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: Cohen's decision to testify live and under oath has already prompted comparisons to former White House counsel John Dean who broke ranks with President Nixon in '73.

MELISSA FRANCIS, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK ANCHOR: As he stands in front of Congress, the very first question is, last time you were here, you lied to us.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

FRANCIS: So, were you lying then or you're lying now?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD KURTZ, MEDIA BUZZ, HOST: Joining us now to analyze the coverage is Buck Sexton, a radio host, co-host of Hill TV, and a former CIA analyst. And Bill Press, host of the Bill Press and Friends Podcast and a former CNN host. Buck, so the media as we just saw, he's the new John Dean. He's going to tell everything he knows. It's like they are imaging Rudy perhaps, that the president's former lawyer after two guilty pleads has some magic bullets that's going to bring the president down.

BUCK SEXTON, FORMER CIA ANALYST: If nothing else, they are excited that they can revisit all the things Cohen has already said. Cohen who is a known...

KURTZ: You are talking about Stormy Daniels.

SEXTON: That's right. Cohen was a known and admitted fabricator, somebody who has lied multiple times on both sides of issues and all around different issues. And he's going to bring up the same things that we've heard largely in the past, which will then allow for the speculation Olympics that tends to go on around Russian collusion, all around campaign payoffs, which is driving much of the news cycle, unfortunately, despite the fact that they never seem to actually get us to the point that they say they're going to take us to, where Trump actually did something illegal. Just once, it would be interesting if they could get us there.

KURTZ: Well, here is where Cohen's allies tell me they know their expectations are getting out of control, because he's not going to tell everything he knows, as one of the anchors just said. He has made a decision that he is not going to get into anything involving the Mueller investigation. Mueller would oppose that. And he's been cooperating. And he says now, he's come clean and he's telling the truth. And so, there would be nothing on Russian collusion. And I think this is going to be a let-down for a lot of journalist.

BILL PRESS, FORMER CNN HOST: Well, first of all, I understand the buzz. I'm not necessarily a part of it. But look, this is a guy who for 12 years was Donald Trump's personal attorney, his fixer, if you will, who arranged the payments the Stormy Daniels' payment and Karen McDougal. He's talked about all of that.

KURTZ: Yes.

PRESS: It's a big deal. He's the centerpiece of the New York attorney general investigation, the New York U.S. attorney investigation, the Mueller investigation. It's a big deal to have him testify. But, you know, I've worked for Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown's motto was lower your expectations.

KURTZ: That's not -- that's not happening here.

PRESS: And I think we all should.

KURTZ: And by the way, Lanny Davis, who is representing Michael Cohen, told me that his testimony will be personal, not partisan, that he is going to explain with shame and regret why he was complicit and some what he calls the dirty deeds. And by the way, Michael Cohen is broke. His family has been in a great emotional strain. And he's uses this, I think, as a chance to vindicate his reputation and explain the past. All right.

Let me move on. We talked earlier in the program about the president's Oval Office address. So, the day of the address, hours before, CNN's top White House correspondent Jim Acosta had this to say to Kellyanne Conway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Can you promise that will tell the truth tonight? Will he tell the truth?

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, Jim. Will you promise that you will?

ACOSTA: I'm not the one who has a tax problem like you do.

CONWAY: Jim, make sure that goes viral.

ACOSTA: OK.

CONWAY: This is why -- by the way, this is why I'm one of the only people around here who really give you the time of day.

ACOSTA: Can you -- can you guarantee...

CONWAY: And let me just -- let me get back in your face because you are such a smart-ass. And I know you want this to go viral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: White House correspondent, not a commentator, saying, well, can you guarantee the president he will tell the truth.

SEXTON: Bravo to Kellyanne Conway. Let me just say that Jim Acosta plays a very important role right now in our media discourse. And that he makes it effectively impossible to continue the charade that you have, certain networks, certain newspapers as objective, non-partisan news sources. This is a joke.

I mean, CNN from an editorial perspective, not everybody there, there are good journalists there, just like everywhere else. But from a broad editorial perspective, CNN exists to launder liberalism for its audience. Essentially, the audience thinks that they're getting objective news. They want to believe that. They think they're just getting the facts.

But when you Acosta and something like this, not only is he not disciplined, he is effectively celebrated by the institution. That was just a cheap shot, an attack. It was meant to undermine a senior administration official.

KURTZ: You used to go to the White House briefings. Isn't it...

PRESS: Here's the problem. They don't have any briefings anymore.

KURTZ: OK. The president talks to journalists virtually every day.

PRESS: Not this one.

KURTZ: That's a side issue. My question is...

PRESS: Yes?

KURTZ: If you are a correspondent for CNN, where you used to work, is that an acceptable tone to take with the president's counsel?

PRESS: First of all, let me just say, I do not work for CNN and I'm not here to defend CNN. But I'm here to defend -- I will, rather, defend Jim Acosta. I was on BBC the other night. The anchor asked me the question, before this feed, is the president going to tell the truth tonight. I think it's a legitimate question when you have a president before the speech who said Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Four different presidents support the wall, which they don't. Thousands cross the border every day, which they don't. They arrested 4,000 terrorist, which they didn't. That was a legitimate question.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Wait, I want to make this point. I think Kellyanne Conway is very, very good. I think on that day, she lost it. She was amateurish and she should not have fallen, walked into his trap.

KURTZ: All right. This is Jim Acosta's continuing version of asking the president, people at the White House, when did you stop beating your fill in the blank, wife, spouse, whoever it may be? He needs to stop doing this, he won't stop doing this. He's more famous than he's ever been, which is kind of a terrible commentary on the way of so-called journalist...

PRESS: It's not the White House reporter's job to necessarily be liked by everybody. It's their job to ask questions.

KURTZ: If someone had done that, to Barack Obama, would he lie tonight, you would have been mad.

SEXTON: No, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: You're right. You're right. I have gone to the briefings. Let me tell you, go back to Helen Thomas, Sam Donaldson. People were thorns in the side of the White House. And they just have to do it.

KURTZ: Well, I think you're conflating aggressive journalism with a journalist that assumes the president is lying before he even speaks. I want to talk about legitimate fact-checking. I don't have the time to play the sound-byte. But last weekend, Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, had Sarah Huckabee-Sanders on and challenged her about the president's claiming -- the administration claims that 4,000 known or suspected terrorist came through the border illegally. And he said no, those were people who were picked up at airports. She sort of backed off. Kellyanne Conway went on TV a day or two later said Sarah Sanders had misspoken.

My point is there is some legitimate fact checking going on not just with Fox. And it doesn't have to slide.

SEXTON: This was a miss by the administration. To Bill's point a moment ago, this is where the administration, I think, should get some heat from journalists because there was some truth to the way that they proposed these facts initially. But it wasn't misleading. With that said, Kellyanne Conway corrected it. And there are a lot of complex issues that come into play, when you're talking about the border...

PRESS: Just a quick point, bravo to Chris Wallace. He did some work. I said also bravo to Andrew Napolitano, Fox and Friends, who has been more and more critical. And bravo to Shep Smith, who has been -- the same thing. He went through the speech and said here is what he got wrong. So that's good journalism. We ought to salute it.

KURTZ: I'll give them your address and they can send you flowers. Bill Press, Bill Sexton.

SEXTON: Thank you.

KURTZ: Thanks very much for coming by.

After the break, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is picking all kinds of fights through the press. Would she lose her status as a media darling?

And later, how the press is handling a tabloid expose of Amazon's Jeff Bezos.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: Democrats' hottest young star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apologized to the president's son for responding to his criticism by warning him on Twitter that she and her party were about to get subpoena power, which sounded very much like a threat against Donald Trump, Jr. Here is what she said on 60 Minutes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Some people have suggested that was you know an abuse of power on your part.

CONGRESSWOMAN ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: Well, if he felt genuinely really threatened by me, I apologize, but I think, frankly, it's legal advice any person would give.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Why did the 29-year-old freshman get so much media attention? Joining us now from New York, Chelsia Rose Marcius, a New York journalist and a former Daily News reporter, and here in Washington, David Mortosko, U.S. politics editor for DailyMail.com. And, David, she did apologize to Donald Trump, Jr., but that episode kind of carried her -- captured her shoot first style of tweeting. What do you make of it?

DAVID MORTOSKO, DAILYMAIL.COM: Well, first of all, it was the kind of apology my 10-year-old daughter would give to my 14-year-old daughter, if she was pressed. She was back-handed and not real. But the bigger picture here is she's not going to have the power to investigate anybody. She is not going to be on the intelligence committee, the oversight committee, maybe she will be on financial services. But that's not really at play.

I think at this point, she has an inflated sense of her own importance in Congress.

KURTZ: Is that because she has so many -- millions of followers?

MORTOSKO: Sure, absolutely. And I think the media has helped her, you know, buoys that sense. But right now, let's be honest, she's like the small town valedictorian who goes to Yale or Dartmouth, and finds herself in the bottom 10 percent of her class. And she thinks she is going to run show. She's not going to run the show.

KURTZ: I wouldn't suggest that. But, Chelsia Rose Marcius, you are a New Yorker. And do you see a clash between Ocasio-Cortez' style and sort of tradition-bound D.C. establishment and media establishment?

CHELSIA ROSE MARCIUS, NEW YORK JOURNALIST: Absolutely. I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is very direct. She has this no nonsense way about her. It's very indicative of New York and where she grew up in the Bronx. But I also think there might be a place for that. It's just going to be interesting to see how that plays with the rest of her party.

As we saw from the political story this past week, a lot of Democrats are saying and some by the way with her own ideology, the ideology she embraces as well. They're saying that you know she's not quite fitting in here and how she is going to find her place within the party to pull for this progressive agenda. She so wants to move forward.

KURTZ: You are referring to a story from Politico that was headlined, something like Democrats try to reign in Ocasio-Cortez. And, David, the Washington Post -- let's get in to the fact-checking part of this.

MARTOSKO: Sure.

KURTZ: They gave her four Pinocchio in the fact-check for complete botching. There was a $21-trillion Pentagon slush fund. There is no such fund that could be used to finance Medicare for All. And here is her tweet. Why did Washington Post give my confusing tweet on military accounting the same number of Pinocchio's as Trump's flat denial of how many Americans died in Puerto Rico, who makes this decisions? So, she pushes back a lot on journalist.

MORTOSKO: Well, it's not only that, Howie. You remember, during her campaign, she actually banned journalists from some events completely. She was complaining today about CBS announcing its 2020 team in not having black journalist. She went after one reporter in Washington this week for refusing to call Stephen King a racist.

She has no fear about going after journalists. And in that respect, I think she sees herself as the far-left Trump. And she's going to do this to satisfy the progressive base. The question is whether or not some of the older, more established Democrats in Congress will say, oh, wait a minute, we have their own way of doing this. Don't throw so much fuel on the fire, because we all look bad.

KURTZ: Right. There is one similarity to Trump. And that is she's sticking it to the media from the left. Her fans, and there are many of them, at least in social media, seem to like that. Chelsia, let me play a little bit more of the Anderson Cooper interview on 60 Minutes, where there is a question about her sometimes being a little fast and lose with the facts came up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

COOPER: But being factually correct is important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So, if she -- what do you think of her saying well, it's more important to be morally right than get your facts straight because journalism and politics is about having the right facts, and not just, you know, the ones that you have arguments.

MARCIUS: Absolutely. I see what she's trying to do here. She's trying to pivot away from her mistakes that she clearly made. And she's trying to minimize them a little bit. Well, the question is, can we really minimize such big inaccuracies this way, from not only her, but any politician in Washington. I think it would have been better to own up to the inaccuracies a little bit more, which she did a little on Twitter. But I heard a little sense of sarcasm as well.

And by the way, if she's trying to again push this progressive agenda that something that her own party even seems to shy a way from, with some of the people, some of the Democrats in the House and the Senate, then you really need to make sure that your facts are sound. If you want people to believe what you are trying to, again, push forward, then you have to have a very bullet proof set of armor on you. And that comes with sound facts.

MORTOSKO: You know, one thing, Howie, I have to say, it's not just the $21- trillion thing in the military. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued this week to defund ICE completely. That's a very, you know, significant liberal line. A few days ago, she voted to fund ICE, as part of a big appropriation. And I question whether or not she was even aware of that. So, it's not just a matter of sometimes being honest and correct, it may be a matter of competence that the Democrats have to rein her in on.

KURTZ: Chelsea, I've got half a minute. When she says on Twitter, pushing back against facts on this case, well, I have been fact-checked the same amount of time as Sarah Huckabee-Sanders' six. And she has been over two years, and I've been here for four days. She seems to feel almost to have a chip on her shoulder about the media challenging her.

MARCIUS: Well, she's a media darling. And with that kind of power comes great responsibility. And whether or not she asked for it, she does have a very huge, obviously, social media platform with about 2.2 million Twitter followers. And that is going to have -- she's going to have more eyes on her.

So, she -- you know, I don't know the statistics in terms of whether she's being under fire more than someone else.

KURTZ: Right.

MARCIUS: But what I can say is that this is the reality of the situation. It is what it is.

KURTZ: Right.

MARCIUS: And so, she's got to have to step up to the plate.

KURTZ: When you invite that kind of scrutiny -- I mean, you have that kind of attention, you're going to get more scrutiny. No question about that. Chelsia Marcius and David Mortosko, thanks so much.

In other news, Megyn Kelly's divorce from NBC is now final. She will be paid for the rest of her $69 million contract after being ousted from the Today Show, over that black face controversy. She will also be free to take another television job. I still think the network used the flap to force her out over sagging ratings.

And Susan Zirinsky, a respected producer at CBS for four decades is kind of a surprise choice to take over CBS news. Z, as she is known, very much earned that job, but it can hurt the network to have a woman in charge after Les Moonves and Charlie Rose were ousted for sexual misconduct.

So, to calm the National Inquirer's embarrassing expose about Jeff Bezos, did the pro-Trump tabloid does have something of an agenda? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: Amazon's Chief Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, announced this week that he and his wife of 25 years, MacKenzie, are divorcing, which was big news because well, he's the world's richest man. But hours later, the National Inquirer reported that its four-month investigation have found photos and text of an affair between Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, a former television host in Los Angeles. Now, Donald Trump is a fierce critic of Bezos and The Inquirer of course is owned by Trump's pal, David Pecker.

Joining us now from Connecticut, Charlie Gasparino, senior business correspondent for the Fox Business Network. Let's start with the business aspect. I'm tempted to say Jeff Bezos' private life, I don't care, it's his own business, except his life is going to have a significant...

CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CORRESPONDENT: You read those e- mails, come on.

KURTZ: We'll get to that in a moment.

GASPARINO: Those text, yes. Full disclosure, I used to do a finance column for one of David Pecker's fitness magazines. I just like to get that off.

KURTZ: Sure.

GASPARINO: Off my chest. You know, here's the thing, Howie. There are two stories here. There's the business story, obviously. You know, he owns 16 percent of Amazon stock. She's likely to get a chuck of his assets. She could be one of the leading shareholders at Amazon. So, there is an issue. Does the company run differently if, you know, the wife, MacKenzie Bezos, is involved? I kind of doubt it.

The markets are not reacting that way. It seems like there's enough money to go around. And it seems -- you know, we don't know if they have a post- nup. Apparently, they don't have a pre-nup, but there's something, if you cover rich people like I do, there is something called post-nuptial agreement, just in case you get divorced, as you're married, you sign this document which divides the assets and talks and discusses things like this.

KURTZ: Let me jump in and ask you about this, because I just want to just play a brief sound-bite, the president being asked about the Bezos' divorce. Role it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President Trump, do you have any reaction to Jeff Bezos' divorce, his affair?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I wish him luck.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's it?

TRUMP: I wish him luck, it's going to be a beauty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: No love lost there. So, just to remind people, because the National Inquirer you know put-out a statement saying they have been investigating this story, 40,000 miles and five states. And this is the kind of investigative reporting it does. In other words, it has nothing to do with the White House. David Pecker and others got immunity at American Media, Inc., the parent company after admitting working with the Trump campaign to buy and suppress stories involving Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. So, does this have an appearance of an agenda or is that unfair?

GASPARINO: Well, of course it does. And you know we should point out, and I know people that know the president, I know people that know and Jeff Bezos. The president despises Jeff Bezos. He really believes that Jeff Bezos is editing the Washington Post, particularly the negative stories about him.

KURTZ: It is true, by the way, but he has to me and many others.

GASPARINO: Right. Bezos says listen, I talked to Marty Baron, the editor twice a year and it has something to do with -- it's usually about finances. But, you know, here's the thing. That was my sort of initial gut reaction, like this is a hit job by David Pecker. And it's no better than David Pecker, the National Inquirer. Yet, everything seems to be accurate about the story.

The question becomes is this a worthy news story. And you know, I kind of think it is. It involves a high profile person, it involves a lot of money, it involves Amazon stock. And guess what, you know, people want to read the dirty, sort of -- of dirty sort of laundry of the rich and famous.

KURTZ: Well, on that point, Charlie -- on that point, I should say that representatives for Bezos and Lauren Sanchez have both sort of put-out the word they were separated from their respective spouses, because Lauren Sanchez is married to a hotshot Hollywood agent, before any romance began.

But leaving that aside, if this is world's richest guy, Amazon huge company, why is it that there has been nothing in this aspect of it in the New York Times, Washington Post, which of course Bezos owns the broadcast network, CNN has done a little bit, Fox done a little bit, because no one is disputing that these texts and the photos aren't authentic.

GASPARINO: Yeah, I mean, they are authentic. I mean, they would have come out and said it already.

KURTZ: So, is the press protecting Bezos? If this was a politician, you know everybody will be going into the details.

GASPARINO: Well, everybody is. I mean, I'm reading it left and right. I mean, you say that the Times should do more stories...

KURTZ: I'm saying that if the Times covered the divorce -- I'm coming with a less than a minute here.

GASPARINO: Right.

KURTZ: But not all of the stuff the Inquirer found, maybe it's so unseemly they don't want to do it. The broadcast networks have not touched it. I'm just raising the question. Quick thought.

GASPARINO: I mean, I think -- listen, there is a value to reading this stuff. I've read it, I know everybody else has read it. They read it in the Post and The Inquirer. But however, the real story is the divorce, the money, Amazon, in my view, and the political aspect of whether he's been set-up by someone who hates him that has a friend in the powerful tabloid.

KURTZ: All right.

GASPARINO: And I think they've covered it pretty right.

KURTZ: That's where we'll end it. Charlie Gasparino, thanks so much.

And that's it for this edition of Media Buzz. I'm Howard Kurtz.

Hey, check out my new Podcast, Media Buzz Meter, where we kick around the five top stories of the day. You can subscribe at Apple iTunes or FoxNewsPodcast.com or Google Play.

Check out our Facebook page. Let's continue the conversation on Twitter @HowardKurtz. We're out of time. So we're back here next Sunday. We'll see you then with the latest buzz.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.