that's it for now. this is mike huckabee. stay tuned for justice with judge jeanine. on the buzz meter this sunday, the media kept urging, insi insisting, demanding a scalp in the v.a. scandal. now they've got one. eric shinseki pushed out on friday after investigators confirmed press reports of secret waiting lists at veterans' hospitals. >> the secretary of veterans affairs did not have to wait long to learn his fate. >> the man at the top of the v.a. paid with his job. jay carney has been fielding tough questions about eric shinseki for weeks, suddenly they're both gone. >> will news organizations now move on simply lose interest in the more complicated tale of how our vets are being denied medical care? on jay carney calling it quits, did his constant and personal

battles with reporters undermine his effectiveness? hillary clinton leaks her book chapter on benghazi to politico. will that help her diffuse the coverage of this story? and why are she and her team so wary of the press that her long-time spokesman says there's no such thing as straight reporting anymore. brian williams sitting down with ed snowden in russia for a one-hour conversation with the fugitive from justice. >> are you looking for clemency or amnesty, would you like to go home. >> i don't think there's ever been any question i'd like to go home. from day one, i said i'm doing this to serve my country. >> was this a hard-hitting interview or a primetime infomercial? i'm howard kurtz and this is "media buzz." from the moment the veterans

administration scandal mushroomed into a story, would president obama dump his v.a. secretary? all of a sudden, all the talk, everybody hour, was about edward shinseki. >> what you heard was an invitation for a resignation. >> yes. >> i think he's gone by the weekend. >> my expectation is that general shinseki, a patriot will voluntarily fall on the sword. >> it's now a question of when, not if shinseki will go. >> a few minutes ago, secretary shinseki offered me his own resignation, with considerable regret, i accepted. >> will the media's interest soon fade now that the ritual sacrifice has been made and shinseki is toast? joining us now, lauren ashburn, host of "social buzz." jona goldberg and dana milbank, columnist for "the washington post." did the media with their drum

beat, did he go, why hasn't he been fired yet? did they leave president obama with no choice than to push him out. >> i don't know if it was president obama. shinseki, a good man, didn't want to be a distraction, which is what the president said. give me awe minute. >> it's the official line. >> it is the official line but this is the doddler in chief here. take a look at sebelius, hhs secretary, how long did it take him to finally lop her head off? >> it seems to me the press was writing stories about obama's failure to show leadership in this scandal. >> there's a bit of difference in that obamacare was scene as a partisan scandal. this affects every single person. >> jona, i understand the need for the president to show leadership action by doing something, making the change. >> a cool change of pace. >> why did the media focus so obsessively on this one personnel move? >> i have to say, it was strange to me.

almost by universal consensus in washington, everyone understood this was essential i a prewrittpre written kabuki theater sort of thing. everyone should fall on the sword. they kept the dream beat going. everybody agrees that it's unfair to shinseki. i think he was a bad manager, great american, great patriot, bad manager. they knew they had problems. his leak team lied to him, apparently, according to reports. there was an expectation, this is how these scandals unfold and the guy's got to do what he's got to do. >> you called for shinseki to be pushed out in his "washington post" column. >> he responded personally. >> he did. you got your wish. what has been accomplished except for the political appearances? >> i'm not sure anything has. now we go into the long question of do we repair something that's been broken for decades and the likely answer to it is no. but shinseki dug his own grave here. the president made problems for

himself by -- up until a week ago saying, if things are found to be wrong, guys, this wasn't a question of if. it was very clear. so i think they dragged it out and made themselves look like weak leaders on this. you know, i think there was needless blood letting there and they could have taken care of this a while ago. >> somehow the white house set the standard, as long as these were isolated incidents, shinseki had his job. when now it's systemic, now he loses his job. >> i think it was embarrassing about how the beltway press made this about shinseki. now, will the media essentially declare mission accomplished and move on from this scandal? >> i don't think all media will. but without the personification. we have the head of shinseki gone. without the political flash point, you know, this is really a bipartisan issue. i think that it will fade into the background. >> the narrative is easy. is the secretary going to be

kicked out the door or not? more complicated issue, "the new york times" had a good story on friday, primary care doctor shortage in the v.a. system where the 400 need to be hired. it is more complicated to get into the hospitals and the doctors and the waiting lists. >> do we need 10,000 new doctors? what do we do with the federal pay scale? do we rejigger the way the v.a. is right now and move the pots of money around? that takes real digging, even for opinion people -- opinion people -- to have to go through all of that information. it's easier to just report on the top and what's happening. >> you touched on this a moment ago. i credit the arizona republic and cnn for breaking the story. if this problem was going on for years, the press for all its outrage hasn't exactly been all over it, for all the outrage right now.

>> if you look, you'll find out there are interior stories -- mcclatchy. >> periodically, sure. >> one of the things i think this will stay in the news longer than it might normally is that this is so politically radioactive in congressional districts, veterans are incredibly well organized, incredibly popular. there's no counterlobby to veterans in the united states, which is one of the reasons why we let the v.a. get bloated and inefficient. there's nobody out there that wants to take on the political task of angering the lobby. usually there's a lobby to counterbalance. in this case there wasn't one. because congress really wants of flesh than shinseki and we have elections coming up, i think it will stay in the news a lot longer. >> i think you'll have two things going on. one is the commission looking into it. the important business of government of getting it right, that will be buried late in the broadcast. you know, on multiple clicks down on the website. i think some outlets surely not the one we're on now, will try

to continue to make this a political scandal. you saw a hint of that with boehner last week saying i don't want to know about shinseki, i want to know what the president was doing. >> you had a mild swipe at fox news. you wrote in your column that unlike some other stories which we could debate, this is not a phony, republican hyped scandal. >> right. does it become a question of who destroyed papers or didn't reply to this subpoena. i fear that's probably what's going to happen. >> is that boring? >> in the house of representatives. that's exciting because that's a political scandal. i think if we're being honest, we have to say this is a longstanding problem, obama said in 2007-2008, he was going to do something about it. he didn't. it's not a political scandal in that sense, it's a failure of government. >> he shoved a hell of a lot more money in it. if you think that's the answer to these problems, great. >> there are more veterans who need to be treated. >> sure. you have a bufr oxythat gives

away something for free. by definition you'll end up having rationing in bureaucratic problems. >> we are going to move on to hillary clinton and who she's going to be up against. >> she's probably responsible for the v.a. problems when you get right down to it. >> we're going to move on to the congressional races. this will just by newsstandards fade. >> you don't want that to happen? >> of course i don't. i want to hold the media's feet to the fire on this. i have an uncle who was a veteran, a family member who served in world world ii and is dependent on the v.a. this story is important. >> the good thing about the coverage is that we're hearing the voices of veterans and family members and it's putting a human face on this. this has been a gutwrenching scandal. and i hope that that doesn't fade. i want to turn to our other topic, we kind of expected shinseki would step down on friday. we were not expecting jay carney to announce his resignation. let's take a look, this is a few

days ago on the v.a. scandal iconically enough of carnie, fox's ed henry mixing it up. >> why are you still tolerating it? >> and where is the punishment? >> ed, i don't ask -- >> where? >> i'll give you the same answer. >> it's not me you're disappointing. there's veterans waiting 115 days. >> he turns it back on him. >> very testy and personal. >> i'm sure jay carney was burned out after three years. >> that was ham-handed of him to do that. >> this is my question, did carnie quit because he reached a point where he could no longer be effective? >> yes. i think the answer to that is definitely yes. that tipping point came when the benghazi e-mail was released about the white house shaping the talking points. he said that wasn't about benghazi. at that moment, he was a dead man walking. >> every spokesman, of course, jona, has to deny and deflect bad stories. how much did that and obamacare

and v.a., the battles in the press, how much did it erode carnie's credibility. >> some of us didn't think he had that much credibility going in. >> why do you say that? >> this is a pet peeve of mine. as you've written a couple times now, this administration has drafted enormous numbers of people from the mainstream media to work in the administration. and i always think it's interesting how the supposedly objective reporters, how did they figure out they'd be incredibly effective less wing spinners and hacks for a democratic administration? i couldn't figure out from the tax. >> everyone knew what his position was. he was an opinion journalist. jay carney was the "time" bureau chief, a news guy, somehow everyone guessed that he would be an incredibly effective spinner for a democratic administration. you see it with lots of people. at the same time, look, i think it was three years is a long time for jay carney. it's a long time for us. there was something about his style that was incredibly grading. sort of the best boy at the

front of the class style, that i think annoyed a lot of people and the way he ended up eventually, you can't blame him too much because the lies and the spin are what the administration wanted him to provide. >> he made few, if any, high profile mistakes which was a significant accomplishment. dana, he did spend his career, there was an evolution of style where he was challenging reporters, like ed henry, and others, challenging their motivation, saying they were being partisan in asking certain things. >> i wrote that he resigned amid allegations of extremely long wait times for white house press briefings. >> i had a similar tweet about his backlog of lies. >> exactly. but i think it's sort of the case of like the reformed smoker who's particularly pias about preaching to other smokers. no longer as a reporter he came to look on the ills of his

profession. he didn't have a whole lot of credibili credibility. i don't think a press secretary has a lot of credibility back to mike mccurry. send me a twee tweet @howardkurtz. we'll read as we do every week, some of the your tweets at the end of the program. next up, why is hillary clinton so distrustful of the press that her spokesman says there's no such thing as straight reporting anymore? and later, did brian williams hold ed snowden accountable in that hour-long interview? ke

hillary clinton and her camp

leaked a chapter of her book to politico. the 34 pages dealing with benghazi. the former secretary of state decries the regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media. jona goldberg, flat out deceit by some of the media. who would that be aimed at? >> i'm sure some of my closest friends are in the crosshairs. look, hillary clinton is sort of has an incredible gift at playing the media. people seem to have forgotten when her last book came out, she went on and played the victim everywhere, talking about how hard it was to be married to bill and the scandal and everything. >> you don't think it was hard to be married to bill? >> look, i'm sure it is. at the same time, when "the washington post" wanted to ask her about some of the really interesting and controversial things she had to say about politics and the role of the supreme court and other things, hillary clinton refused to talk

about some of the political subjects in her own book. she wanted to stay in the crosshairs as a victim figure. she's doing something similar. her strategy throughout her time in public life has been to take her weaknesses and turn them into strengths. benghazi is a huge weakness. she's not been honest and she's trying to turn it into a strength, by saying anyone who disagrees with me is unpatriotic. it's dis respespecrespectful an disgusting what she's doing. >> hillary clinton writes i will not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead americans. didn't this the chapter and other steps her team is taking leading to a political offensive? >> i think it's a defensive. she put up a shield, saying she's drawing this line in the sand, saying she's not going to do it. i don't know whether she can sustain that. i do think it's a good effort on her part, because once you do get dragged down into that rabbit hole, you never get out of it. i mean, i think -- i don't

see -- >> you're saying she's justified, jona finds it disgusting. >> i think she's shrewd. smart move. >> you don't find it disgusting at all? >> what we're talking about it as a matter of media strategy here. i'm sure jona and i disagree on the merits of the whole benghazi scandal. >> sure, sure. >> you know -- >> in which her team, including former white house spokesman tommy veeter are involved in trying to get other democrats on the same page. let me turn to lauren. why did she decide to leak this to politico? >> to get it out of the way. she can drive the conversation and she isn't on the defensive. i'm sure in the book she's going to lay out reasons why she's going to need what she's going to do in the future. take a look at these magazine covers, "spy," "the weekly stand art." look at that face on "the new republic." people do take their big shots at hillary. she needs to embrace that and

engage. >> you're making two points, one is that by leaking this in advance, this becomes news. everybody writes about it. the book comes out, june 10th is the publication date, i believe, she candice miss this as old news. >> she can manage it, manage the points she makes in the book. >> hillary clinton has been talked about, kicked around, praised, at odds with the press corps for more than 20 years she's been in public life. and "new yorker" article says she's adopted a bunker mentality toward the media. is that justified? >> of course. i think a lot of politicians, you and i definitely disagree on this, a lot of politicians hate reporters. bill clinton aside, john mccain likes reporters. >> right. >> it's an adversarial relationship. it's not supposed to be a good relationship. >> i don't think it matters whether politicians hate reporters or not. i think they have to learn -- i got criticized for saying this, to deal with negative press and reporters.

yes, she has been tied to everything, going back to the conspiracy theories about the death of her friend vince foster when she was first lady. >> and being overweight. she gets a lot of what people will call sexist comments, too. she has got to learn how to deal with. i don't think they're sexist as much as they are issues that anybody who's going to run for president is going to have to deal with. >> some of that, jona, goes back to the tense relations that hillary clinton had in the 2008 campaign and there was a lot -- i mean, this i think hurt her coverage. she was very aware, her team understandably felt the press was tilting towards barack obama in those primaries. does it matter whether the two sides get along if you're running for president? >> i i think it certainly helps. the press corps is like werewolves. even full moon they must feed. >> there's a full moon every day, right? >> with hillary, it goes back -- remember, you wrote about this at the w"the washington post."

hillary clinton got her team of lawyers in the 1990s to drum up a report to attack susan schmidt's reporting on whitewater. they've had an attitude that the press is the enemy for a long time. >> hillary's long-time, felipe renis says there's no such thing as straight reporting, the clintons are good for business. with hillary, more than anyone, there's a premium place for the sensational, the colorful, the inane. and that often comes at the expense of accuracy. what do you make of that? >> we're interested in things that readers want to read about. you know, barack obama has disappointed the media in a way. he's kind of bland to cover. >> is that why we talk about hillary every single day? >> more interesting? >> i think we're eager to move

on to the next thing. let's talk about ted cruz, hillary clinton. they're more interesting i don't think it has anything to do with ideology, clinton personally. she's enjoying fairly good coverage. >> of course she's not an official candidate yet but just briefly, no such thing as straight reporting in the twitter age? >> come on. i disagree with that. many people may not. there are straight stories, the ap, there's a fire here. these are the firefighters. yes, there is straight reporting but in politics it's mostly opinionated. >> i have a hard break. ahead on "media buzz," how are the media covering michelle obama in the coverage of school lunches? first, what did brian william get out of ed snowden?

ed snowden's television interview made quite a splash.

nbc giving the fugitive from justice an hour in primetime as he sat down with brian williams, a top rated news anchor. >> in your mind, though, are you blameless? have you done, as you look at this, just a good thing? have you performed, as you see it, a public service? a lot of people would say you have badly damaged your country. >> sometimes to do the right thing you have to break a law. >> even when nbc just aired snippets, john kerry made the morning show rounds and denounced snowden. >> well, for a supposedly smart guy, that's a pretty dumb answer, frankly. >> so how did williams and nbc handle this sitdown? joining me is joe concha. was this a tough interview. >> depends on what your perspective is of edward snowden.

if you felt he was a traitor, you're probably screaming at your television screen, begging brian williams not to treat a follow-up question as if its a foreign concept, when he said he was trained to be a cia operative, a spy, that deserves follow-up. when he said he's not in any communication with the russian government, that deserved a follow-up. when he said most importantly, that he went to his bosses to complain about the way they were doing business, okay, mr. snowden, can you show us e-mails that indicate that? the nsa say they don't exist. it was a five-hour interview, howie. it wasn't like there were time restraints. follow-up questions could have happened. it depends on your perspective. >> whether you love snowden or hate snowden this was a rare opportunity for an american journalist to pin him down. while brian williams whered about why was he in russia, under what circumstance would he come back, the follow-up thing is key. it just seemed like he let snowden go on and on, didn't interrupt him and would move on

to the next question. >> brian williams, let's not confuse him with mike wallace. this wasn't a grilling, the kind you'd see on "60 minutes." he is more of an infotainer first. >> that sounds harsh. yes, he's great on "saturday night live" and "the daily show." he's a top rated network anchor. >> he's giving more of the human element of the story rather than grilling and asking the hard questions. the bottom line is, nbc needed a win. this was a very good get for mr. williams, however, from a ratings perspective, this finished second to "csi: fargo." >> what about the angle of nbc working with, having a relationship with glenn greenwald who helped put this interview together, was on camera for part of it. greenwald as you know, had harsh

words for brian williams when he did an hour special on the one-year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden. writing this bin laden show was hagiography in its purest, most propagandaistic and most subservient form. i think that criticism is way over the top. now they're kind of teammates. >> greenwald went to moscow and was part of this whole interview as well. the kind of ironic that greenwald intimidates nbc news in general. "meet the press" just a couple weeks ago, greenwald came back on. he's not a fan of nbc, yet he probably recommended to snowden that he should go to brian williams, perhaps because he saw it as an easier interview. it should be also noted that nbc doesn't have an investigative

unit anymore, the type of people that could do those interviews because of isikoff and lisa myers no longer being there. >> to have an interview at moscow, you're going to go with your top guy, your anchor. snowden tried to put off some of what he did on newspapers. i gave it to newspapers with the suggestion that they should vet a not publish anything that really truly would damage national security. let me switch gears here in the minute we have remaining. we talked about hillary clinton and her book last segment. her first cable news interview is going to be with fox news, brett bear and greta van s. >> back in february, president obama sits down with bill o'reilly. hillary clinton chooses over say aachel maddow or chris

matthews, greta van susteren and bret baier. maybe she's looking ahead to the general election where she knows she has the msnbc audience pretty much sewn up. >> she's trying to reach voters. thanks for joining us. >> have a good sunday. up next, michelle obama picks a fight with republicans over school nutrition. has the press gone easy on her? later, megyn kelly has a little fun with "morning joe."

co-owner of the "philadelphia enquirer" newspaper. i'll see you at the top of the hour. keep those tweets coming. here's one from keith bergen. contributing to jay carney's resignation was that he become a one-dimensional punch line that has to be tough. michelle obama's campaign takes a turn. >> we're now seeing efforts in congress to roll back these new standards. and you know, this is unacceptable. it's unacceptable to me, not just as first lady but as a mother. >> the first lady's effort continued on "the new york times" op-ed page where she wrote, some members of the house of representatives are now

threatening to roll back these standrds and lower the quality of food our kids get in school. >> openly taking on the gop, should that have gotten more coverage? >> i thought it got a lot of coverage. i read some of the headlines. they're all full of puns, "michelle bites back on school lunches." you saw "gop rejects school lunch battle." this is a highly political issue because michelle obama is involved and in general particularly because of the money we're talking about when we're talking about school lnchlnch -- lunches. >> i'm embarrassed to tell you our banner says "michelle obama's food fight." originally "the washington post" put this story on the back page and later did a front the-page sto later. it seems the press went soft on her maybe because she's first lady and childhood obesity is a motherhood issue? >> when it comes to michelle

obama, the biggest part of the story when you looked at the press conference is the fact she did speak out and took on congress. she hasn't done this. she does this very rarely. so i think that piece of it was -- maybe that's why you saw a little bit of a softer coverage. we don't see her do this very often. >> i would draw the opposite conclusion, the first lady usually plays it safe, talks about military families and getting xwexercise. >> she's not alone. >> if she's going to act more like hillary clinton i'm not comparing this to the health care initiative. doesn't the press have a responsibility not to criticize her but be more aggressive in treating her as an activist within the administration rather than just a kind of a popular fashion plate first lady. >> two things. i think there was coverage of the fact that schools were saying they can't afford this. the coverage of the other side was fairly well done, i thought, in certain outlets, particularly "the washington post." i think a lot of first ladies have to walk this line. and it's difficult, because

you're either a housewife or you're a policymaker. what are you? you're not an elected official. you're someone who had a job before. was your own individual person. this is something that she's put her name behind and felt like she needed to defend it. of course with the public, it is, being a first lady is a difficult position to be in. where do you fall? >> one of the reasons she's most popular is because she's not down in the legislative trenches on those. until this one which was interesting. does this have any chance of going anywhere? it did pass a committee, i guess. do you think that may have influenced the coverage? it's not like the senate will adopt this tomorrow. >> i don't think this waiver that the house republicans have put in 24 bill is going to make it into the final bill. it does set up an interesting battle between the house and the senate. you know this is something the senate will try to strip out. because if the white house doesn't like it, most likely the senate will not take it. >> do you agree or disagree that this is not michelle obama in the second term that she's going to be a little bit more

politically active in taking on the gop at times on her issues of course. that the press needs to cover hers aa feature beat. >> she starts to go more hillary clintonesque, i think you will see that. this is her signature issue that she's really taken a stand on. we'll see if that extends out more as we go along in the second term. >> another reason to cover her more is she's really interesting. >> really, absolutely. >> people click on those stories. thank you very much for joining us. coming up, "the new york times" ombudsman rips her paper for what she calls an unfair review of glenn greenwald's book. and a mayer wor who refus

test test @g

michael kingsley, a former co-host of cnn's crossfire got whacked this week by margaret sullivan for a piece she said was, quote, unworthy of the book review's high standards. in reviewing glenn greenwald's book no place to hide, he wrote when it comes to leaks such as the ones that greenwald got from ed snowden, newspapers again quoting should not have the final say over the release of government secrets and a free pass to make them public with no

legal consequences. someone gets to decide and that someone cannot be glenn greenwald. really, the government should get to decide? the guardian shouldn't get to decide? in my view, margaret sullivan went too far in says "time's" editor shouldn't have allowed him to make that argument. they have a good track record of holding back information that would in fact harm national security. kingsley now claims he's saying the newspaper should always defer to the government but i have to say, his lack of faith in journalism is pretty troubling. in our press picks, this is way over the line. any journalist can post something dumb on twitter. look at what we heard from the msnbc commentator, responding to a tweet which said my family survived a concentration camp, came to the u.s. with nothing legally and made it work. torre's comments, the power of

whiteness. really? the power of whiteness? you're trying to score a racial point against people who survived nazi captivity? days later, torre apologized on twitter. in an attempt to comment on racism in post world war ii america, i used a shorthand that was insensitive and wrong. i am very sorry and will make sure this doesn't happen again. i hope that's the case. megyn kelly takes on joe scarborough and a reporter takes on a mayor who gets physical with her.

northeast media group got a rather unusual response. >> she approached the mayor of richland heights, ohio, and let's just say the mayor didn't like it one bit. >> were you aware that randy had those charges. excuse me, man, do not attack me. do not attack me, please. >> it's not fair. >> i'm sorry? >> i'm going to let chris know that you're not getting permission to take my picture. >> you don't need to give me permission to take your picture. this is public property. >> all i have to say is go sarah, go, sarah. it was fabulous. didn't end there. you know what she did? she went after her and continued to ask her about her assistant who had attempted forgery charges against her. she just did not let up. >> mayor looked arrogant and clueless and completely unfamiliar with the notion of press freedom. >> how does she not know that she has a right to take her picture? >> i'll tell them that you didn't schedule this.

an interesting confrontation. good for the reporter for standing her ground. >> sarah, fabulous, fabulous job. the only thing that's a problem is the photographer didn't get a picture of sarah. that was what i wanted to see. sarah asking the question. i'm giving this a complete 10. great job. >> i'll give it a 9. great for hanging in there. your turn. >> okay. my turn. isn't every day that an msnbc host ventures on to a fox news set and has to put up with some hazing. >> joe scarborough showed up to plug his new book and megyn kelly was happy to sort of take on the role of his co-host. >> you want to be in the white house? >> no. i'm happy where i am right here. this is a great studio. >> isn't this nice? >> this is fantastic. >> beautiful, isn't it? >> the thing is, again -- >> there's still a blond woman on that set interrupting you at every turn. >> i swear to god, whether it's like 6:00 in the morning or 9:00 at night. >> yeah. >> come on. >> only if you snapped your fingers at me you'd have eight fingers instead of ten.

>> you did your research, didn't you? you take my low point over the past five years, boom, boom, so i'll be ready for mika tomorrow morning. >> now, howie, what do you think? i'm going to take -- >> i think you need to move a little faster. >> watch those fingers an i'm taking the position of the fox feisty female. megyn rocks. >> there were a lot of headlines about this, megyn kelly rips joe scarborough. no, she didn't. she was tweaking him. >> there were tough questions. don't take that away from her but mostly playful and said he had four viewers and maybe he has five viewers. >> clearly enjoying it. >> and he kept filibustering. she kept saying i have to go. >> time for the scores. >> i'll give it a 9. >> didn't get him to confess that he has 2016 ambitions so i'll give it an 8, good segment. still to come, your best tweets, and the newspaper that sunk to the bottom by running a picture of kate middleton's bottom.

here are a few of your top tweets, wonder if the v.a. coverage will fade now that eric shin seccy is out. robert lohaus says covering whether it gets fixed is a different matter. i don't think so, it's an emotional issue that has fired up americans on both sides of the aisle. and on jay carney stepping down as press secretary. joe remy says they all say a lot without saying anything but gravitas and humor can cover a multitude of sins. carney had neither and tough because he was once on the other side of those questions, but he did a good job under very difficult circumstances. >> bricks up a great job because that job is 24/7, have to be monitoring the news at all times and that gets tiring.

>> and you're trying to do work for the president who employs you and at the same time keep the press co-happy which, of course, is impossible. an australian newspaper has published a photo of kate middleton's bare bum a day after a german magazine did the same thing. british papers refused to show a shot of her skirt that blew up by the helicopter and why should the media stick to an antiquated code of etiquette when kate doesn't protect her own modesty? why should the media expose some royal flesh for clicks. >> remember royalty said they had hem weights when they go out? do you know what a hem weight is? >> kind. >> put weights at the bottom of the hem so that that doesn't happen. i think it was good that they didn't run it. good for them, what would this to covering the monarchy?

doesn't really show you anything about how they operate, does it? >> it adds to our own understanding of kate's bottom line. >> i knew it. i knew it. >> you couldn't resist. >> the british papers did the right thing. i think this was pathetic and makes you wonder why people hate the press and why the royal family hates the press. that's it for this edition of "media buzz." i'm howard kurtz. thanks for lyinging. we hope you'll like our facebook page and we'll comment on your comments and check out our home page foxnews.com/media buzz and read all of our columns and videos and other things that we have to say. we're back here next sunday morning at 11:00 and again at 5:00 eastern with the latest buzz. a are>> it is monday june 2nd. the u.s. negotiates with terrorists. those terrorists celebrating.

5 taliban fightersen traded for doug bergdahl. if i can get one i can get 5,000 released. >> why this sends the wrong message to our enemies. >> it never got off the ground. what we know about the plane and the politician that was supposed to be on that flight. >> legend daisy kasem rushed to the hospital. the family drama that could have landed him there. "fox & friends first" starts right now. ♪ >> you are watching "fox & friends first" on this monday morning.

i am heather childers. oo p >> great way to start the day with that song right there. >> a taliban showing vikctory 5 fighters for doug bergdahl. new information-coming in overnight. >> right now army sergeant doug bergdahl is in germany where he is seeing doctors until he is physically and mentally stable enough to head home. the five taliban detainees the united states let out of guantanamo bay in exchange for bergdahl already left cuba. it is raising serious questions about whether or not it is smart to negotiate like this with the taliban. >> these are the hardest of the hard-core. these are the highest high risk people. others that we have released have gone back into the fight that has been