did rise up and call her blessed. and she was. and we were all blessed to have dydydydydydydydydydydydydydydyd. thanks so much for joining us. on the buzz beater this sunday, the nation's capital is consumed by talk of impeachment. this is truly bizarre, because nobody, nobody believes that president obama is going to be impeached, but each side accu accusing the other of fanning the flames for partisan gains. >> they want to impeach president obama. calls for the impeachment of the president of the united states, they're nothing new. republicans have had impeachment on their minds since day one. >> it seems in recent days the left has become obsessed with the "i" word, you know, impeachment. maybe it's because they're using it as their latest campaign tact tactic. >> are the media enabling this bogus drama? the rising death toll in

gaza. the images of dead palestinian children changing the tone of the war coverage. >> i'm sorry, this is just -- this is assinine. the killing of women and children is -- >> is israel losing support in the american media? the "new york times" launches a crusade to legalize marijuana. and what about the warning signs in colorado? plus, the ray rice controversy. espn suspend commentator steven a. smith for saying women who are abused by men have to be careful about provoking them and then declared he was annoyed at the criticism before finally saying this. >> unfortunately, i did an incredibly poor job of asserting my point of view this past friday. for that, again, i am truly, truly sorry. >> is that apology enough? and was espn's punishment way

too light? i'm howard kurtz and this is media buzz. >> the republican house voted to sue president obama this week for exceeding his legal authority. the latest round of political shadow boxing between the two sides. this is during an equally surreal debate that was pursued when sarah palin called for obama's impeachment and the president had to joke about it. >> do you hear someone? you sue them, impeach them. really? really? for what? you're going to sue me for doing my job? okay. >> john boehner's reaction was no way. but the house republican whip didn't exactly run away from the "i" word in an interview with

chris wallace. >> will you consider impeaching the president? >> this might be the first reduce in history that's trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president. >> but impeachment is off the table? >> if the white house is wanting to talk about impeachment, ironically, they're going out to try and campaign off that, too. >> the white house is trying to shift the blame and the partisan pundit res criticizing. >> we have to plans to impeach the president. we have no future plans. listen, it's all a scam started by democrats at the white house. >> and republicans in the congress running for office have hyped impeachment. now the republican party basically wants president obama gone. >> the democrats said this is working in our favor. let's blow it up. they raised $2.1 million in one weekend on impeachment. >> but are the media the ring masters of this impeachment circus? joining us now, lauren ashburn,

fox media contributor, jonah goldberg, a fox news contributor and kelly goth. are the media eating up this impeachment talk? >> absolutely. they're trying to prop up the tent in this big circus. even president obama speculated, oh, well, maybe i should be impeached. come on. when is the last time you saw the tea party and the white house agree on anything? these are strange bed fellows and the media cannot get enough. >> it's a great story, right? except it's not going to happen. well, it's a great story except for the fact that it's not true. i mean, it's natalie not true and i think the media has completely fallen down. i was listening to an npr piece this week where they quoted harry reid saying all the republicans want to do is talk about impeachment which is factually not true. it is a direct attempt as misdirection. he even has barack obama alighting the word impeachment

withbying sued when the whole point of the lawsuit is to ward off any attempt at impeachment. >> so are the media falling prey to disinformation here? it was the republicans who started this talk. and i would agree the democrats are being a lot louder about it. is this disinformation? >> howie, i hope you don't expect me to come on here and accuse the media of covering stories that aren't important at the expense of things that are. illustrate seems to be things that you and i discuss regularly here, that we end up covering the kardashian-type stories as opposed to -- >> are you likening this threat of impeaching the president of the united states to a kim kardashian reality show? >> the fact that it's turned into a three-ring circus and we have real stories like the fact that our federal government goes on vacation whether we have bills that should be passed. allen west, for instance, the former congressman mentioned it in a washington postop ed.

if anything, it's about people like sarah palin who frankly is the biggest win ner all this because she got the biggest public publicity buzz from this. >> the main narrative, the media for the last five years with sarah palin doesn't matter except when she says something we could fund off of. they are part of the tea party fund raising machine. while i respect both of them personally, they do not represent the republican leadership. they do not represent anyone moving any legislation or articles of impeachment in the house. and it's the fact that the mainstream media and msnbc which doesn't qualify any more are sort of you egging all of this on without any fact squadding has become outrageous. >> what about msnbc's roles? >> i think msnbc is using this as a pool tool to bash

republican webs the right wing nut jobs, right? so if you look at nate silvers 538.com, and he has done a great job of compiling all of the mentions of the word impeachment over the last year. msnbc has used the word impeachment 900 times in the last year. >> and fox? what about fox? >> a couple hundred. i mean, so it just doesn't make any sense, that argument. >> but jonah, you're acting as if when the mainstream media report on this, nobody ever mentioned that the democrats are kind of encouraging this because it riles up their base. is that what you're saying? >> no. i think some people mention it, but they -- they're not exactly particularly critical of the effort, right? i mean, this effort is so unbelievably cynical, particularly when it's being used to leverage an actual public policy agenda insofar as the president actually wants to take more draconian unilateral

action on a host of policy areas. what he's trying to do is soften the ground in advance by saying anyone who protests are just like these crazy impeachers. and i think ross had a great column about this in today's "new york times" where he's basically saying they are trying to lay 2 predicate down that any kit simple of a won tonally lawless unilateral action will -- any criticism will seem like a whack job impeachment call. >> i read his column. here is where i think republicans can't have it both ways. he dismissed sarah palin as someone who is creatively crying for attention, surprise, surprise, but as though she is someone who has had no major roelt -- she was knot a rush limbaugh figure. she was on a presidential ticket. >> it's not just sort of figures on the fringe. there have been a number of republicans over the past year who have indeed talked about impeachment. and i showed the clip at the top of steve looes could have said

to chris wallace, that's crazy, we're not going to do that. he kept turning it around and blaming the white house. >> tea party introduced it, democrats -- i don't think it's fair to say that one party is having a field day with it. i think both are and unfortunately so is the media. >> so the house this week votesed to authorize a lawsuit against president obama for exceeding his authority on obamacare. is this lawsuit, as some people are calling that impeachment-like, is that taking our focus off the fact that this president, this congress, basically accomplished nothing? >> of course we love to cover a big fight like this. it's a clown show, really, going back to the circus analogy. it was covered. they passed a va bill, right, before they left. >> i was glad to see that. >> and i was, too. i thought, finally, they're actually doing something before they go on summer break. but that was covered on the inside of newspapers and barely got coverage compared to

impeachment and impeachment light. >> but joenl na, when we talk about the focus on the president and you say when a is he going to do on immigration and the fact that this is a big distraction, on thursday and friday you had the situation where john boehner couldn't get his own caucus to approve a bill just to deal with the border crisis in all the undocumented tens of thousands of kids there. and then they passed a more conservative version that has no chance of becoming law. do you think it is fair for the media to be portraying the republicans, at least on this issue of being disarray? >> no, i think it's legitimate to say they're in dis arrarray. i think in absent of pointing out the fact that harry reed's is senate hasn't done anything and went home and vacationed without trying to pass any laws makes it seem as if the real problem is only the republican house, which is in disarray which, in fact, harry reid and the democrats have been in lock stepped following the orders of

the white house to do nothing for a very long time. >> do you think the media gives harry reid and his compatriots a pass? >> yeah. >> here is a great example of partisan ship on this bill that the house did eventually pass through. screaming headline in the huffington post, house puts half million at deportation risk. third paragraph of the story, the measure has no chance of becoming law. so going back to your point about do we in this business focus too much on the game playing, there are problems here well beyond the border that need to be addressed that are not being addressed because of the utter dysfunction in washington. >> i'm going to see something i rarely do. one-word answer, yes. i think there's a lot of focus on who is scoring points and who is not. i read a comment from the daily beast specifically about tracking the numbers through gallop on how americans, not people in congress, but americans view immigration. and when you start to see happening was actually a shift, howard, in that you have people

like some of my family members backs in texas who had strong feelings one way in the open sets sit direction about immigration reform and then the other direction, and then they say okay that's someone who is a dreamer and i can support stay. you have these children come in and then you have the political games around the kids and there are a lot of people says wait a minute, we have problems in urban chicago and elsewhere and where -- >> and there's so many issues we could sit here and pick off and we're doing features of this is why people hate washington. i think this is increasingly why people don't trust the news business. they sense that we are expending all this energy and having focus on what's not going to happen. send me a tweet about my show this hour and we'll read some of your messages at the end of the program. when we come back, the "new york times" push to go liberalize pot. and later, the espn commentator who said women

shouldn't provoke domestic abuse, he gets off with a wrist slap. h. h

the "new york times" editorial page mounted an unusual crusade this week. day after day, the paper argued, it was time to legalize marijuana. >> i guess the point is i'm not urging people to smoke pot any more than we are for them to drink alcohol or to smoke cigarettes. it's just that making it illegal is creating a social cost for the country that is absolutely unacceptable. >> but the media didn't just fall to light. cbs interviewed a prominent opponent while nbc's "today" show reported on homelessness in the first state to legalize weed, colorado.

>> this summer in colorado, there's a different type of rocky mountain high, hier number of the homeless. >> i know a couple of people who were like, yeah, i'm from texas. >> here, i was able to smoke pot freely. >> but what the "new york times" is calling for is a radical move that counters all the major medical associations that have looked at this. and it wouldn't be good for america. do we really want to encourage a stoned society? >> jonah goldberg, is the "new york times" out of touch on this crusade? polls do show that 54% of americans in a couple of recent surveys favor legalization. >> yeah. look, i write for a magazine national review that called for ending the drug war 20 years ago. >> including decriminalizing pot? >> including decriminalizing pot. >> so you're saying the "new york times" is late to this? >> i'm saying the "new york times" is pulling a fery buehler where you jump out in front of the parade and act like you're leading it. this has been in elite circles for years now. when colorado, the district of

columbia, washington state, beat the "new york times" position, you can't say the "new york times" was out in front of anything. more over, the hypocrisy of the "new york times" invoking state >> saying once we reveal the federal law each state can -- >> i am very much -- i would push almost all of these things down to the lowest level possible. but the "new york times" doesn't have that position on tobacco or anything else except on policies where it thinks it will advance the ball. >> kelly, we saw a little bit in those clips and the rest of the media not falling into those line about glowingly positive reports about let's legalize pot. >> gawker, which can be snarky sometimes, i thought they had an interesting column which was entitled endorsing legalized weed doesn't make you a thought leader. but when you read it, he essentially made the samt argument. when you have the "new york times" doing article after article for years on the article

in terms of arrestes and who was facing larger penalties for marijuana arrests in new york and to weigh all of this once it becomes palm lar in polls nationally to say here we are being thought leaders on the issue, you can't really claim that mantle. >> this is a serious effort, multiple editorials, tv appearances, a facebook chat. is this issue worth it? >> i think that they could have spent a lot of that ink on something that is more important to the american public. how about the economy and creating jobs? how about the va scandal? where did that go? that's falling off the face of the print media. it just seems to me that this social issue does advance the cause of the upper west side editors who happen to run the paper and not the piece across america. >> i've described it as the revenge of the baby boomers. >> if it fooems feels good, do it, right? >> yeah. but the "new york times" getting

behind this issue, is that having an impact? >> i think it's stirring the pot. no pun intended. but it is getting people to talk about it. we're talking about it here. you and i talked about it on bill o'reiley's show. people are concerned about it in the sort of media circles. but my point still is -- >> media circles means that it's -- even if it's -- if the paper is late and it's not a thought leader, it is now driving this conversation and that's part of what an editorial page is supposed to do as far as debate. >> i think they're surprised at how little it's driven the conversation. i think ten years ago, this would have been a major news story. we've all discussed it's not. i mean, what happens is i think the "new york times" has been caught off guard by how much social media drives conversations in the way editorial pages no longer do. >> i think that's exactly right. there's another issue. the "new york times" editorial page, not the op-ed page, but the editorial page is awful.

they write terrible editorials. >> what does that have to do with -- that's my point. they lost their credible. "the washington post" has editorials. the "new york times" is the most boring, uninteresting go with the fad liberal elitist publication. >> let me guess. you don't write for the "new york times," do you? >> nor do i have any -- so i can be honest. >> i thought you were going to say they were drinking too much alcohol. >> no, they're just bad. >> i'll looet leave that to your opinion. but i think the times has influenced the debate here. jonah goldberg, keli goff, thank you for joining us. after the break, up next is the american press start to go blame israel for the rising number of civilian casualties in gaza?

as the war between israel and hamas continues to rage, as the death toll in gaza continues to climb, the tone of the american media is changing. some journalists are more skeptic kral, more challenging of the magnitude of the israeli assault. >> what do you say to americans and other people around the world who admire and cherish israel as the only democracy in the region, yet see the images uncontested images of palestinian -- and what do you say to them that israel may be losing its -- >> if my calculations are right, israel has in the last three weeks killed more palestinian children, more than 200, than the total number of israeli soldiers killed in military operations since 2006. at what point does the israeli government say, enough, we're

killing too much innocent children? >> we don't want to see innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire between us and hamas. >> joining me now from pal alto, california, is jenean, former bureau chief for the washington post and now teaches at stanford. is this rising death toll in gaza 1600, 1700, turning some american journalists and xhem ta taters more skeptical? >> andrea mitch sl a smart journalist. there's no way to not at least acknowledge the rising death toll and ask the israeli military what they think about this, why is this necessary. i don't know how many times ron, the israeli ambassador to the u.s. or the prime minister spokesman have been on tv making their case. whether or not the american media is turning quote/unquote against israel, i don't know if that's the way to frame it. when you had a cnn reporter

tweet israeli scum because she saw them cheers as israeli missiles were landing in gaza, she was immediately removed from israel. when you have -- >> and she said she felt threatened by that particular group of israelis. let me move to my next question which is what reaction do you and other reporters get when you question israel's military strategy or whether the casualties are disproportionate to this goal of closing down those secret hamas tunnels? what's the reaction? >> well, look, there's two narratives on what's happening here. for years of reporting on this conflict, you have the israeli narrative. you have the hamas terrorist organization that is responsible for what's happening here, right? the way they carried out suicide bombings in the 90s and they are the ones who should be blamed. then you have the other narrative which the palestinian res locked in an open air prison in the gaza strip and they're in a way held host aem. they can't move, they can't do anything and how can you blame

them or their leadership for israeli military strikes that kill people. so you try your best as reporters to capture what's is go on here. with the advent of social media, a lot of people in the field feel licensed to sweet out personal opinions that frankly they should be scaling back and they shouldn't be doing, right sfrp i remember when i was based in jerusalem and when i was in gaza, in 2010 when the israelis seized a turkish aid ship, i got hammered on the phone by a senior israeli official for the way i handled that. i just don't believe that the american media is suddenly anti-israel. >> what about the israeli media? you wrote the following, you said in times of war, many if not most israeli journalists with some admirable exceptions hunker down with the rest of the country and are afraid to ask tough questions.

have you still got me? okay. sorry to have to cut short our interview with gentleman neep. i guess our satellite went down. i think that she was making the point that when journalists try to steer a middle ground, to ask tough but skeptical questions, they get hammered by both sides. my apologies for losing our contact. thank you, jenean. in our press picks, david used twitter to accuse the "new york times" of publishing bogus stage photos of two blood-soaked men at a gaza hospital whose father had been killed in an israeli air strike. that's a very serious charges. and similar photos from ap and reuters show the times pictures are, in fact, authentic. now it says i was wrong. i retract and i apologize. coming up, espn's stephen a.

smith he's really sorry for saying women might provoke their partners to beat them but later apologizes. [bandares with amer

news headquarters. now back to media buzz and howard kurtz. >> i made the biggest mistake of my life and i want to own it. >> baltimore ravens star ray rice apologizing the other day after the nfl suspended him for a measly two games, that he knocked out his fiancee and was captured on videotape dragging her unconscious body, as we see right there, out of an elevator. the tawdry episode prompted this rant by espn xhen taters, stephen a. smith. and but what i've tried to employ the female members of my family b some of who you all met and talked to and what have you. is that, again, and i've done this all my life. let's make sure we don't do anything to provoke wrong

actions. so let's try to make sure that we can do our part in making sure that that doesn't happen. >> a spent a day defending himself on twitter saying he was annoyed by the criticism of his remarks and that enough was enough before finally telling viewers this was, quote, the most egregious error of my career. >> i alluded to a woman's role in such heinous matters, going so far as to use the word "provoke" in my diatribe. my words came across that it is somehow a woman's fault. this was not my intent. to apologize, to say i'm sorry doesn't do the matter proper justice, to be honest, but i do sincerely apologize. >> espn has social security spended smith for one week. does that punishment fit the crime? i sat down with christine brennen, sports xlumist for usa today. >> thank you.

>> were you offended by what stephen said about women somehow provoking violence? >> yes, i was. i did not see it live. i saw the firestorm on twitter. and immediately just started to read up on it. and yes, i thought that was just a -- it was an awful thing to say. it was clooirl iclearly ill advised. stephen a. smith is a smart man. i don't know what he was trying to get it, but the word did just scream out and absolutely inappropriate and wrong. >> on that point, was his apology enough and did espn do enough by taking him off the air for a week? >> i wish they had done more. stephen a. smith is a colleague and a friend. i've probably known him for 20, 25 years. he is lucky to have his job, let's just say that. >> because? >> because if he had -- well, he certainly could have been fired, anyway, for what he said. i'm wondering if he had said something about other groups of

people, obviously, you know, talked about women this way, if you say this in a racial sense, obviously he's an african-american men so that takes that out of the equation. but i wonder if he had said other things about other people if he would v lost his job. >> two years ago in the nfl chad johnson was arrested in a domestic incident with his wife. stephen smith said this. there are plenty of instances where provocation comes into consideration. incity investigation comes into consideration and i will be on the record here on national television and saying i am sick and tired of men being vilified. is there a pattern here? >> yes, there is. i think espn could have taken that into consideration and levied a much stronger sa suspension. because week? and a stealth suspension. stephen a. is very lucky to be working and it makes me sad to say this because i wish he had never opened this can of worms,

wish he had never said these worsdz to begin with. but yes, really, stephen a. [ from a few years ago, now this? and i think that, you know, a suspension of several months, i think, again, just throwing it out there would have seemed much more appropriate considering the severity of this issue in this country at this time. a week and you're back, that just seems wrong to me. >> slap on the wrist territory. >> absolutely. >> some say these sports pundit res provocative and when they get too provocative, they get walked. is there something to that? >> making people think. i know over the years in our business, you and i, we want to say things. you say it and you know there's going to be a reaction. but there's right and there's wrong, howie. at the end of the day, there's things you can say and things you cannot say. >> what bothered me is he was defending himself on twitter and that showed i thought the classic not getting it.

but another instance, former nfl coach tony dungy got hammered for saying he would not have hired michael sam because of what he saw as the media distraction for his beam being an openly gay player in the league. >> in this case with tony dungy, it was kind of talking around an issue. and when he said i wouldn't want to have to deal with all of that, i think, as you know, dungy was criticized greatly and then he came back and basically blamed the reporter for not asking more questions and 23409 leading him to a point where he could have explained himself better. >> interesting defense. >> exactly. and for a man who has been interviewed thousands of times, obviously, he's a talking head now on television, that he needs to be led to this place by a journalist? it's just laughable. i mean, tony dungy is looking for any excuse possible to explain what i believe were words that did sound inappropriate and anti-gay and

he is a man, of course, who has that history working for anti-gay marriage law in indiana a few years ago. that's his right, of course. but then -- well, back it up. if you really say that and you don't want to have all of that, whatever all of that means, then the reality is, of course, don't try to blame it on the reporter, stand by your words or say what you mean and obviously make it clearer. >> television can be a dangerous business and standing by your words is important and explaining your words is equally important. christine brennen, thank you very much. >> howie, thank you. just got a tweet on this subject saying stephen a. smith was fired wore his opinions. espn's suspension of his was gutless and hypocritical. up next, his marriage was broken and his wife had a crush on a businessman. and later, the dating sites that deliberately set up lousy matches for its customers.

the corruption charges against former virginia governor bob mcdonald never caused much of a national sxlash when washington disclosed the relationship between if former governor, his wife and businessman johnny williams who got their help promoting a business supplement and who gave the couple $165,000 in cash, loans and lavish gifts like

designer dresses and a row lex watch. then came the indictment. >> i have apologized for my poor judgment and i accept full responsibility for accepting these legal gifts and loanes. >> but the mcdonald -- remained largely a local story until this couple's story hit the tabloids. oh, maureen mcdonnell had a crush on johnny williams who was can'tly calling and texting the poor wife. nbc's rachel mad yao has an objection. >> what does not make sense is the media helping them with it. to the extent that this trial is being covered nationally so far, it is being covered purely in a tabloid way, right? purely through the lens of catty frankly sexist gossip about the first lady and how she liked expensive shoes and fancy shopping sprees, while bob

mcdonnell is clearly -- >> bending over backwards, how is that, rachel? >> that makes sense of the legal strategy. attention, news media. this is an overt strategy and you are helping one side of this legal case by advancing this story line for them because you can't resist a tabloid soap opera tail. you're being played. >> hold on. how did this become our fault when the gormer governor of virginia try toes save his neck with a weird love trial defense? that's the story. it's news we have to report it. and the media should be openly skeptical, of course. but it's not our job to prosecute bob mcdonnell. ahead in our media verdict, did david gregory blunder by an unverified israeli video? and rand paul accuses msnbc of not telling the truth. did the network sandbag the senator?

test

a. time for our video verdict. on last week's "meet the press," david gregory played some video from the war between israel and hamas for u.n. spokesman. >> nbc news has not independently verified. the israelis say, you cannot see this video, that purports to show rockets being fired from a u.n. school. is this accurate?

>> in defense of me, to bring me on a live -- i think anyone looking at this program would agree that that's really unfair. >> but by the end of the program, gregory came back and offered viewers this postscript about the israeli claim that the video showed hamas opening fire. >> in their view the video does not show rockets being fired from a school in gaza, so this is a back and forth we are not able to settle at this point. >> for david gregory to show an unverified video that has not been released on elive television. >> this is a venerable news program and i happen to think that playing into this are the attacks he had received earlier about losing his job, also it's a news program that's acting

like cable, something was coming in at the last minute and that is not what this is about. i'm giving this a one. >> i also think this is a producing error on the part of the staff and i'm also giving it a one. >> when the host began asking paul about a fourfour-year-old interview, the senator wasn't exactly pleadsed. >> what you had said at the time was that you were concerned about the rules for private business. why did you evolve on rules for private business? >> what i would say is that, to be fair to myself, because i like to be fair to myself is that i have always been in favor of the civil rights act, so people need to get over themselves, writing all this stuff that i have changed my mind on the civil rights act. >> some said that title 2 and title 7 relate to businesses. >> i never was opposed to the

civil rights act. and when your network does 24 hours news telling the truth, maybe we can get somewhere with the discussion. >> we talk about rating these video clips on good journalism and good television. this i think was good journalism. he asked respectful questions instead of shouting over him. >> he has the two senators on to talk about something else and then by the way, let's now spend three minutes on something you said four years ago, it looked like msnbc was out to get the senator. >> i can't say that part of that isn't true because in that interview, one of the things they did was they put a full screen of his words from 2010 over what he was saying right there. you couldn't really understand it or pay attention to him. so i'm giving it a six. >> that is generous, i am giving it a three. still to come,

here are a few of your top tweets. i asked, should the media take impeachment seriously. robert says only in the context of a self-inflikted head wound. charlie says until not the house of representatives starts discussing the subject. keith says yes, but the focus should be on who's doing the talking. and kurt, only from the angle of inside washington and the

destructive politics as usually our elected elite. >> charlie's right. after the election in 2014, then the media can talk about it seriously. in our press picks, this is over the line. cnn anchor bill weir seems like a smart guy but boy did he do something stupid. he didn't like the post about climate change, so he tweeted, weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant f. he's calling people deliberately idiotic and cursing. dumb move, my bad. very bad, indeed. first, facebook secretly manipulated the mood of its users by feeding them either positive or negative information. now that dating site okcupid, men and women who were deemed

bad matches were told that they would be good matches. and okcupid ran some profiles with pictures and no text and found shockingly that people looking for mates care more about pictures. did the website apologize for lying to -- hundreds of experiments at any given time, on any given site, that's how websites work. >> facebook messed with feels, they're doing this on okcupid without users knowing it. and this company is treating people like they're customers not clients, and without their information they would not have anything. >> i have a problem with being september on a really bad date with somebody you're told is a 90% match and it's only a 30%. >> we all live on the internet, we all know that things like this are going on, you click that, do you agree with all of

the terms from this website and you don't even look at the terms from the website. i'm being a realist, because this does happen, i don't like it, but of course this is going to happen. >> i would vote with my mouse and go to something else. i'm not dating so i don't know what would be. but i would go someplace. >> that's it for this edition of media buzz, i'm howard kurtz. give us a like, go to media buzz, and we'll respond to your questions. and you can e-mail us. we're back here next sunday, >> it is monday august 4th, 2014. we have a fox news alert. water crisis half a million people told their water is not safe of courses not to drink, not even to touch. brand new tests just in.

a live report just ahead. >> another american infected with ebola. she will soon be back in the u.s. as we learn more about the doctor that is being treated already in atlanta right now. >> image seeing this thing roaming around your neighborhood. what the heck is it and how did it get there? no one seems to know. "fox & friends first" starts right now. ♪ >> good morning to you and your family. it is sunday. let's make it a great week together. you are watching "fox & friends first". >> i am heather childers.

>> i am ainsley earhardt. we begin with the fox news alert. the water crisis in toledo. the drinking water is still contaminated with an allergy toxin. the allergy coming from lake erie feeds off from suage running off treatment plants and fertilizer warms. it cou -- farms. you should not drink it, kids shouldn't bathe in it and don't think about giving it to your pets. boiling the water only makes the concentration worse. >> sometimes people would like to move quickly, but the way i look at it and the way the mayor and i have discussed it, i want to make sure i would be comfortable with my family, my daughters, my wife drinking the water. nearly half a million people now relying on bottled water. the state sending in the in aingsnal guard with nearly 50,000 gallons.