diseases for which we know the molecular cause. we only have treatments for 500 of them. to be able to stand at the helm and steer that forward is a dream come through. ning bell on the fox business network. that have a good day. on our buzz media this sunday major news organizations team up with a conservative writer whose book about the clinton foundation generates an avalanche of critical coverage. >> and mrs. clinton tonight facing something else as well. a firestorm as questions monte on cash donations to the clinton foundation and home. >> this officer, peter schweitzer is a very detail-oriented person. >> he a, news proof, and b, makes these accusations that are a partisan-fueled fiction.

>> but can these allegations be dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy? and have others cut exclusive deals with the publisher? diane sawyer's much-valued interview with bruce jenner about changing he has gender. >> are you a woman? >> um yes. for all intents and purposes i am a woman. >> was the abc sensitive or sensational? she almost quit the bush white house before becoming the president's spokeswoman and said she was too nice and polite when she came to fox. a conversation with dana perino. and ben afterfleck, whose ancestors included a slave owner, apologizes for a pbs cover-up. i'm howard kurtz and this is "media buzz." most journalists and commentators hadn't read the forthcoming book "clinton cash," still haven't read it, when "the

new york times" reported that author peter schweitzer questioned whether hillary clinton as secretary of state did favors to big donors to her husband's global foundations, yet the media turned the book into the week's top political story. >> the appearance of impropriety is staggering and the defense is paltry to say the least. >> is this a serious story of how top politicians choose power, or as the candidate herself argues merely a distraction? >> what is not par for the course what is surprising that along with the fox news channel having some sort of exclusive deal to advance hype this anti-clinton book from this conservative activist who has a history of doing stuff like this we are also now learning that "the new york times" and "the washington post" have also entered into some kind of arrangement with the author. >> the clinton camp's pushback focused on schweitzer's background writing for breitbart.com, advising george w. bush's white house and sarah

palin. >> it's a book that's written by a former bush operative, who's a reporter for that agust news operation, brighteitbart.com, or has been in the house. >> fox news aired a program on donors pushing a uranium deal. >> for that deal to go through, it needs federal approval and one of the person who has to approve that deal is secretary of state hillary clinton. >> who as senator clinton was vigorously opposed to these kind of buys from countries into u.s. property? >> joining us now to analyze the coverage mercedes a former bush white house official. bob cusack, editor in chief of "the hill." and joe trippi democratic strategist and a fox news contributor. when you get into the russian-controlled uranium company that gave millions to the foundation half a million to bill clinton for his speech

needed state department approval while hillary was secretary, are you surprised by the depth of the reporting, just by "the new york times" alone? >> actually those of us on the right are surprised that it's "the new york times" reporting on this. and really what they did, they're building off of peter schweitzer's story. so they ended up having additional interviews looking at public records, and really what they wrote was, it almost sounded like a political novel while you were reading it. so we were absolutely surprised about this. that they went so forward and decided to investigate. and what you've seen is that now slate.com, the atlantic all these other liberal, onliners basically saying you know what there is something fishy here. what are we doing all this work with like the democratic candidate, hillary clinton? >> bob, anything wrong, anything questionable about "the new york times," "washington post," abc news and fox news teaming up with david schweitzer to dig into the clinton administration? >> no absolutely not. it is a good news story, but there is no smoking gun.

that's a problem for republicans. but the problem for democrats is howard dean is going after "the new york times." so actually they're going to go after the messenger. the messenger is a conservative. he's about to go after jeb bush and he's gone after lawmakers on capitol hill for alleged insider trading. even though he is a conservative he does have credentials. >> the reaction would have been very different, joe, if it would have just been fox news and peter schweitzer opposed to these other big newspapers that are hardly part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. >> that's true and part of it is because this is self-inflicted stuff. the clintons should have conducted things -- or i would have advised them to. i actually think it was a lack of depth of coverage on this. one of the things that i don't see anybody reporting on is for any of this to be true you have to -- who fried the other eight departments in the u.s. government? who bribed the utah regulator? >> when you talk about the other eight departments, just to clarify, this is including the state department. you have treasury and all these other -- that had to prove

this -- >> yes, assuming there was something really wrong with this company getting 20% of the uranium and getting it to russia and all this kind of -- suling that was true and then -- what would the clintons really -- what i mean by this i didn't see "the new york times" or "washington post," anybody, contacting any of those other departments, trying to follow this story in that direction, because if this is true it's much bigger -- all these people did it so bill clinton gets $500,000 speech could have happened. >> everyday americans as well. >> politics is also about appearances. >> that's something they have to deal with. >> raise that point with peter schweitzer about the nine departments among others things in an interview with fox news sunday and also of coursed him about criticism from the clinton camp that this was a right-wing hit job. here is that exchange. >> i went to the investigative units at "the new york times"," "washington post," at fox news

and abc, precisely because i wanted this evidence to be evaluated and looked at. to not be seen in partisan terms. >> so the clinton pushback is you know schweitzer is this partisan guy. all of this coming conspiracy theories before the book was out, and even people who are for hillary clinton had a chance to read it. >> and it just shows that the clinton campaign is struggling to answer these questions. and what the media is basically saying what is your answer? and they're not giving the response. and i think that reflects very poorly on the clinton campaign because at the end, what they end up doing is they end up attacking the author. which as we know again, "the new york times" took it forward and started investigating it forward and it became a bigger story. >> not all media outlets have gone crazy on this. to their credit the network morning shows and the nbc and abc newscasts have done two stories this week but nothing on the cbs evening news. the whole week at all.inexplicable. my question for you is reporters often get material from people sources who have strong viewpoints who have axes

to grind. that's not unusual, but how do you deal with that? >> well i mean you have to deal okay what is the news here? and i think because there was a lack of disclosure here there was a $2 million loan that was not disclosed. and that ties into the earlier issue about the e-mails that hillary clinton -- but, i do think that you have to judge, okay this source has an ax to grind, but let's take a look at the news and obviously, that's what peter schweitzer said yeah this is legitimate. >> one of your reporters is writing about a democrat and provides some research you've got to take that into account, but it doesn't mean the researcher is wrong. >> and you've got to check it. >> at the same time joe, as folks are pointing out, this guy, peter schweitzer has worked with george w. bush, with sarah palin, his institute is funded by the billionaire family that is helping to bankroll ted cruz's campaign. does that in your view as a democrat make him less credible as an author? >> there's fishiness on both sides.

and that's part of what's going on here. it's actually this is the perfect place for this to come from. for the clintons -- i mean for the clinton campaign to push back against, because it is so fishy. and i mean -- >> what is the -- >> that a conservative guy who works for the -- i mean this is why it's not going to hurt her in the democratic primary, because -- >> at all? >> i don't believe so. >> okay. and it's because of where this came from. i think it was smart for him to go to "the post" and "the new york times" -- >> because that's -- >> right. but they can still point and i would point and others would point to this -- you know -- again, he wasn't going to -- he's not doing a book on push. it's not a book. as the publisher said it doesn't exist -- >> for a second, you're talking about jeb bush. he wanted to look into jeb bush's finances as well.

>> he targeted this republican congressmen, one was ousted and one had to resign. so i think what he's -- what peter's trying to do is definitely make sure that he's able to have cover and the fact is is that "the new york times" has taken it to that next step. they ended up making more of a story of this than -- >> this is all, again, about appearances. so if there's sympathetic wrong with the appearance of what the clintons did, it's not, you know in this debate in a presidential campaign there's nothing wrong with them pushing back at what the appearance of why this person and who may have been funding him and how and why this book came out, with the timing that it came out. all of this is legitimate pushback. >> but in my view you have so many examples now of whether it's foreign governments or corporate types or shady characters giving lots of money to the clinton foundation not to be altruistic. the clinton foundation does good work around the world. also bill clinton's speech fees going up to $400,000 $500,000

at a time when his wife was secretary of state and later a potential president. but i do want to circle back to joe's point and have you pick pup on it is there a weakness that as of now no one has yet proven. hillary clinton reversed a position to benefit any of these foundation donors? >> yes, that's why i think that this will fade to some degree. i agree with joe, it's not going to hurt in the democratic parm. we'll hear about it on other side. overall, joe, they're not allowed to give to politicians. and here's that's why this story is so juicy. you have all these foreigners not giving just $2,000 but millions of dollars. >> wlabt the fact you allude to the clinton campaign in your view not handling this terribly well that hillary clinton is out there campaigning, with groups of voters in iowa new hampshire, and not talking to the press at all, as these questions build up. >> it's a huge distraction for the hillary clinton, and for hillary clinton, basically, when we saw what happened with the

e-mail server, it took her weeks to respond. so they weren't ahead of the story. so i think you're starting to see the same effect happen especially because i think this story is a lot deeper a lot more complicated and it's a lot juicier, almost than that e-mail server story. >> i think, eventually she has to answer these questions. and the problem with the e-mail story is no response essentially for eight days, and then that disastrous press conference. brief comment. >> i think one of the problems with the clintons they had success in the 90s with these kind of press tactics. i don't think they work necessarily with twitter in the age that we're in where this has craving of information, the demand for immediately, and everybody's deciding the truth before it's possible to find it out. >> a funning feeling that our audience has something to say about this. ahead, new lease from nbc says the network has been covered more exaggerations from brian williams and can he return to the anchor chair? but when we come back

pundits asking the republican candidate whether they would attend a same-sex wedding snap a gotcha question?

we've heard a lot about gotcha questions in this campaign but is it fair to attach that label to one question about same-sex marriage that has suddenly gone viral? >> but the question is if you would attend to a gay wedding? >> yeah if it's somebody in my life that i love and care for, of course i would. >> would you, rick santorum attend a same-sex wedding of a loved one or a family friend or anyone that you were close to? >> no i would not. >> if you had a loved one or a friend getting married in a same-sex wedding, would you attend it? >> well i will tell you, i

haven't faced that circumstance. >> all right, is that a gotcha question mercedes? >> i think it is. it's a very personal question. and although someone will decide to attend a same-sex marriage he might not agree with it from a policy standpoint. so it doesn't get to the answer of what their policy is. >> we know what their policy is. this is an attempt to get a different kind of answer. >> it makes it awkward. >> why is a personal question in your view necessarily a gotcha question? >> i think when you look at the way they set up the question it was very much in a way to make them feel either embarrassed, awkward, because they know what their policy position may be but when it comes to something so personal as to whether you would attend a gay wedding, that might conflict with your religious beliefs, it's just one of those things that i think hits that personal spot for a lot of these politicians. >> but one of those asking the questions, hugh hewitt a conservative radio talk show host. >> this is what presidential candidates go through. they're going to get asked

questions that make them uncomfortable, and how they handle that is a major -- not so much did they answer it on the wrong side or aconstituents in their party, but how do they handle the question is it something people are interested in seeing. >> all of these republican candidates oppose same-sex marriage and many of them repeated at an event in iowa. but this is an interesting journalistic phrasing. it gets you off the talking points and does make it personal. and a number of republicans took the opportunity to say, i would, i have attended a gay representation or marriage. >> i think it's a great question. because any way they answer it it's news. and everyone can relate to it. because a lot of people have been to gay weddings so it's a very personal question. i agree with joe, is that when you're running for president, it's a circus. you'll get personal questions. they volunteered to run, and that's why you're going to see those questions asked of anybody on the republican side. >> and another reason i think it's not a gotcha question, and

i know you disagree -- >> the only one in the room. >> you're here former republican strategist, it actually allows candidates to be more tolerant. i personally oppose same-sex marriage but if a loved one or close friend had a wedding or reception -- >> or it makes them seem like they're anti-gay. if someone says they don't attend a same-sex marriage or will not attend a same-sex marriage does it come across that they're anti-gay because they're not going to the same-sex wedding because of their religious beliefs? that's where there's that fine line between the question was being asked and how they answered it. and you saw governor scott walker who walked around it had a very difficult time answering that question. >> i will leave it up to the viewers to decide whether it's a gotcha question or not. thanks very much for joining us this sunday. ahead, ben affleck apologizes for covering up his roots on a pbs special. up next after months and months of tabloid teasing, diane sawyer

sits down with bruce jenner to talk about his transformation.

the evolution of bruce jenner from olympic athlete to well it wasn't clear what has been dribbling out in the media for a long time new york's "daily news" touting world-exclusive photos jenner seen in a dress, and there has been this huge publicity buildup surrounding his interview with diane sawyer which aired friday night. >> but this is shameless selling of everything these days. >> i know. >> and i get that. but, what i'm doing is going to do some good. >> are you going to tell me your name by the way, today? >> no. if i do the media would go crazy and i would never get rid of them. >> the media would go crazy. joining us now is david zurich

television and media critic for the baltimore sun. so he used this to promote a tv show on the surgery that is going to change him from a man to a woman. >> i'm always ready to attack anything on television. after a long time covering the industry it's usually right. but i think maybe jenner did this because he trusted diane sawyer. because she's had a long history of coming through and dealing with these kinds of interviews responsibly. and in fact i gave them two hours and they did let him tell a really human story that was moving i think, to a lot of people. so -- but, you know -- >> that was the question going in would this be two hours that would illuminate the challenges and obstacles facing transgender people which recently didn't get any attention in the media, or maybe negative attention, or maybe just another celebrity sit-down? >> i think it's definitely not just another celebrity sit-down.

i think in jenner's case he's still in the process of this transition. and he doesn't have all the answers. you know don't think if you listen to bruce jenner you know everything about transgender identity. you don't. but i thought it was dealt with sensitively. and look i don't blame any network for really promoting anything they have. and abc did promote this really really hard. >> and jenner of course there's a promotional aspect to this for jenner who, you know, not only sort of enabled this by not saying anything and it became such a tabloid story, but now has a new deal with "e!" for this documentary series. at the same time it's hard to think of many interviewers who could have done what diane sawyer did, in that she didn't i thought, sensationalize it. she let him tell the story, and she also provided some historical context. >> yeah i'm not surprised at how good she was, but i was kind of amazed that a across the whole span on as complicated a subject, she did as well as she did. even when she said when he

talked about this eight-part reality series. and come on reality tv is really a bad you know? but when she asked him, in a way that wasn't offense i have are you promoting -- is this all about promotion -- >> she did ask that question. >> and his answer was, my god, would i do all of this for promotion? i thought she was really brilliant again. >> well sb 17 million people watched and i think it became a cultural phenomenon. let's go to another subject. brian williams still serving that six-month suspension at nbc for embellishing particularly a story about being in iraq and allegedly under fire when his helicopter was not. stories appeared yesterday in "the new york times" and then "the washington post." "new york times" says the nbc's internal investigation expanded to include a half dozen new examples of exaggerations, including when he was in egypt's tahrir square. he was there, but apparently he said he was on a balcony and in another instance he said he was down there looking somebody in the eye. "the washington post" then says there are 11 instances of

exaggerations. nbc now looking at it. now, this followed a briefing for a top-level nbc officials, including steve burke, who runs the place for comcast. what does it say that these stories were leaked from within nbc? >> howie, absolutely you and i have done this so long that i have no doubt, those stories are not out unless nbc wants them out. that's a given. the only question is to what end are they doing it? i can't think of any good end for brian williams with those stories being leaked. and, by the way, if you have all of these instances, how in the heck do you bring back -- remember i was like the night it happened i said if he's your managing editor and he's lying, he's got to be gone by the end of the week. well six months off on the table. and i was accused of being one of the guys with a pitch porkforkpitchfork. but i think nbc -- look how does it get out of that room

howie, with the top executives -- >> it was no question it was something of an authorized leak. i was saying it was 50/50 he would come back. you've got to measure his whole successful career at nbc versus the incidence at iraq. but now that you have more examples or the alleged examples the details of which we haven't seen, it feels like a tipping point. >> it absolutely feels like a tipping point. in my head i tipped right away. but now -- >> you're hard to tip over. >> but now, in terms of the larger media universe and i think other analysts are going to say, there's no way this guy comes back. because nbc, in essence, damages him when they put this up. i think it's a negotiating thing to see what they're going to buy him out at. >> so even lester holt in the chair, even though his numbers are down against abc now in first place, that still doesn't make it possible in your view for brian to come back? >> that was going on before lester holt. that's a continuing pattern and i think lester holt is doing very well in that chair. i really do.

i would stay with him if i was nbc. >> and in fairness to brian williams we don't know all the details. these are leaks and we need to see what he's accused of what he said and what he did. thank you for joining us. ahead on media buzz yet another msnbc host hasn't paid his taxes. is that a problem? and hillary keeping her distance from the media as news organizations raise troubling questions about favor and cash at the clinton foundation. the editor of the "washington times" and "the washington post" reporter who covers her, in a moment.

as the media scrutiny of the clinton foundation intensifies, hillary clinton still mostly avoiding the press. >> well we're back into the political season and therefore, we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks

and i'm ready for that. >> joining us now, ann guerin who covers hillary clinton for "the washington post," and john editor in chief "the washington times." when you were at "newsweek," you floored a project with author peter schweitzer didn't pan out, but do you have an impression of his work? >> he's brought to light important things. congress reacted to his last book in 2011 with a book that dealt with insider trading. and i've been trained that you listen to everyone. i think he's pit on another line this that we've all been very tlar with. access to cash that's been a clinton story line for 20 years. >> that's been a story line about a lot of politicians. >> is there a difference between "the washington post" teaming up with peter schweitzer or teaming up with groups like propublica or groups that have a partisan viewpoint? >> that's a tough one. what our editors have said is that schweitzer's background is a relevant point, but it isn't

one that would necessarily exclude us from considering the fact he has put together as a basis for reporting. and that's what the paper did, in a piece we published this week is it essentially took a look at what he had put together and then did our own reporting. i will point out, that was separate from the reporting that i do covering clinton as a candidate. it was our investigative team. >> and that "washington post" story looked at all of the overlap between clinton donor -- clinton foundation donors issued say, and speaking fees to bill clinton and things like that. >> right, very complicated. >> as somebody deals with a lot of sources, you've worked with organizations like "60 minutes," it's pretty common is it not for reporters to cultivate all kinds of sources and some of them are shady characters and some of them are partisan but it comes down to the slidty tyty of my information. >> everybody has a motive.

when my mom calls me there's a reason she's calling me. sorry about that mom. but, motive is important. is it factual? and the other thing you have to look at particularly when you're dealing with an author is the constraints that the publisher may put on us. peter wants to control what the story may cover and not cover. you need to have dependence. you can work effectively and i think those rules work well. >> in this case i don't think it puts any constraints on what they could do in pursuing what he developed. so you covered hillary clinton when she was secretary of state, in a very different kind of press corps, and you cover her campaign now, when i think to put it with a certain understated tone she hasn't been terribly accessible to the media, particularly as this story has exploded. talk about the difference there? >> it couldn't be more different. she went from being a presidential candidate with an enormous press corps and a very high-profile to being secretary

of state, which, while a high-profile job, comes with a rather small plane compared to air force one or campaign plane. and a small press corps in the back of the plane. and over time, there's a real intimacy that develops between the secretary of state or the secretary of defense -- >> do you think these policies mostly in global matters and not the rough and tumble of a campaign. >> right, there are 12 reporters on the plane who only care about the iran nuclear deal or north korean missiles or whatever and really are, most of the time, only going to ask the secretary of state about those relevant issues at hand. and she got comfortable and accustomed to that. and now it's very different. >> and do the clinton -- the people around clinton, the aides, the handlers the spinners when a story like this breaks about the foundation donors and cash do they talk to you on background? do they try to guide the story? obviously, hillary clinton, the candidate, didn't say anything.

>> only that very small clip you played is the only time she's addressed it and that was -- right, exactly. it was after a campaign event. it wasn't actually part of what she set out to do that day, as a candidate. i will say that one really big difference between the last time she ran, and also to a degree when she was secretary of state and now was the media team she put together by and large, are people who have a strong and long track record of pretty good relationships with -- >> but is it frustrating for you as a reporter that you can't get anything out of the -- >> oh, absolutely. no with we would love to be able to put some pretty serious and specific questions to her about her own relationship with the foundation. do you wish for example, that you had not put your name on the foundation way back when. would that have been a simpler and cleaner decision? and no those things are all

being handled by intermediaries both on her campaign and at the foundation. >> these questions about access to a candidate and the press always wants more come up in every campaign every candidate, but do you think in particular that the hillary clinton campaign is hurting itself by the way it's dealing with the press corps? because these are legitimate questions. they're not gotcha questions, they are not personal questions. >> mrs. clinton has always struggled with being able to come out in front of an issue. it sort of created the idea of secrecy. and then it wasn't always what you thought it was. >> that e-mail question as well. >> absolutely. >> do you think those battles of the '90s and those scars on both sides have undoubtedly, are sort of playing a role forming the backdrop for her in 2015? >> when i talk to her aids they struggle. they want her to get out there a little bit more and there's a natural tendency for her to

gravitate. >> john and erin thanks very much for stopping by. after the break, why dana perino almost quit the bush white house and her rocky transition to fox news. and later the scurrilous case of iran bringing bogus charges against a "washington post" reporter.

test.

roberts. leave bruce alone. he married into the kardashians, hasn't he suffered enough? i used to deal with dana perino when she was white house press secretary, and she was so diligent and measured i didn't see her as a white house news star. the good news is lessons and advice from the bright side. i sat down with her in new york. >> dana perino welcome. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> when you worked at the bush white house, on the day that you were going to be told that you were going to become white house press secretary, you were actually prepared to quit. why? >> well i had been working in the white house for several years, i'd been with the administration since right after 9/11. i had been a deputy press secretary, which was a great job, but around that time, the chief of staff, josh bolten had asked senior staff, if you feel like you can't make it through 'til the end, the president needs some fresh energy and i was tired. and i also thought, do i have anymore to learn here? i was challenged every day, but i started getting these ideas of

having some personal time and my husband was certainly looking forward to that. >> you wanted your life back? and then you became press secretary. >> i said i kind of want my life back and he said i want my wife back. and that affected me. ed with gone on a short trip and we were on our way home ao my husband, i think i'm ready. but i was really nervous about telling the president. because i don't think i was quite actually as ready to leave as i thought i was. i went in to tell ed gillespie that you're resigning, and he said i have something for you first, and he offered me the job as a press secretary. >> and the rest is history. you became concern when your predecessor wrote a book that was highly critical of president bush and you called him and things did not go well? >> scott mcclellan was not only my boss he was press secretary and hired me as his deputy but we were also very good personal friends. i knew that he was writing a book. the way he described it to me that it was not going to be negative about president bush but certainly was portrayed that way by an editor early on in the

process when he announced the actual formal book. i contacted scott, and it was very clear that that was the book that he intended to write. i didn't try to talk him out of writing the book but i did have an immense amount of concern for him, because i thought that his future would be harmed but also for the president. and i also had a sense of personal betrayal from a friend so i was very upset about that book. >> and you say that you were angry when the book came out, and then you wound up talking to george w. bush about it and he told you what? >> the president asked me to try to forgive scott. and i said well can i throw him turned bus first? and he said no. that he didn't want me to live bitterly and asked me to try to forgive him. and i said yes, sir. and as i was walking out of the oval office he said by the way, i don't think you'd ever do this to me -- and that's when i realized he knew me better than i knew myself. because i was very worried that scott betraying the president would then spill over into the very good relationship that i had with president bush. and it never did.

>> and another conversation you had with the president came after -- this was during the 2008 campaign and you had pushed back against hillary clinton, then a candidate, saying that george w. bush didn't care about the elderly, and hillary ended up using that in a fund-raising pitch, and the president was not pleased. >> the president had very explicit instructions for all of us that we were not to get involved in the campaign. and everybody was running against the incumbent at that time even the republican. so his advice to us was just leave it alone. i did that for the most part but it always bothered me because we're just leaving some things on the table here and it's hurting the president's reputation and it bothered me. there was one day, i knew the facts, so i hit back and 40 minutes later, hillary clinton's campaign was off to the races with a fund-raising appeal. and i got a call from the president who was at his ranch and i was in waco and he said i know what you're trying to do and you're trying to protect me but i'm going to be fine. and the best thing that we can do is focus on the work we need to do and leave the politics to everybody else. >> what i found fascinating here is what you describe as a pretty

rocky transition to fox news. you say in the early day, weeks, months, you puddlelled your punches about the obama administration and someone that spelled out hel h-e-l-l. >> sometimes i didn't know what i thought. >> and then you're up against these really strong personalities. and you say that you liked civility but you work for a very aggressive cable news network and people you say, think you're too nice too reserved too vanilla and they want more spunk and outrage from you. so how you doing in the spunk and outrage department? >> every once in a while, i let someone get my goat but one of the things i write about in the book is the importance of grace and dignity. and the way i think about that when i was press secretary, i would always imagine when i was at the podium if president bush was watching the press briefing if i thought that he wasn't going to be proud of something that i was saying then i didn't

say it. and kentuckying myself with that kind of grace, dignity, and humility and strength i always felt that i had to have more facts than everybody else. >> but are you worrying the more you mix it up the more that you throw el bowbowelbows the more you leave behind the sort of let's all get along per sonsona when you first came to fox, you become more of the -- >> i'll let the viewers decide that. one of the things i enjoy is that i'm called the voice of reason on the 5:00 for better or worse, and i also let my personality shine through and i write about how i've actually found a good balance and taken some of the things i've learned, provided some advice to other people, and also realized that it's okay to be myself. that's been a great thing for me in my transition to fox and to being on television speaking for myself not for somebody else. >> well you can go up against those other guys and gals you're obviously doing something right.

dana perino thanks very much for sitting down with us. coming up pbs is investigating why ben affleck was allowed to whitewash his family's history. and some at msnbc like talking about the importance of taxes, but paying them, not so much.

you would think that television pundits make enough money to pay their taxes but now comes word that toray who co-hosts the cycle owes back taxes and he has other people who owe them. joy reed $5,000 and al

sharnten and his organizations owe $4.5 millions though he disputes that figure. these are the same people who talk about the importance of taxes. >> taxes are how we all do part of the part. >> they're all afraid to vote for even a moderate tax increase of people who can totally afford it. >> there's been no comment with the hosts or msnbc. i don't like to pile on people when they're having financial problems. let me say i hope they get their act together and pay what they owe. and in our press picks. investigating whether a show is violating editorial standards for how they covered ben affleck's family history without acknowledging one of his family members was a slave owner. >> he traces the roots of his social consciousness to his mother. >> she always told me the character of a person is defined

by adversity. >> we now know thanks to the e-mails that the actor lobbied the show's host and produce tore edit out material about his family's slave history. we've never anyone try to censor or edit what booef found. he's a mega star. what do we do. affleck wrote, we deserve neither credit nor blame or our ancestors, this shows we're still grabling with it. i didn't want my show to include a guy who owned slaves. i was embarrassed. >> hei'm buzzed off by an outrageous treatment of journalist and president obama takes a whack at the press at last night's media black tie

dinner. man: you run a business. could be any kind of business. and every day you've got important decisions to make, like hiring. where are you gonna find those essential people you need? with ziprecruiter, it's simple. we post your job to over 100 job boards with just a single click, so you can reach millions of qualified candidates. then we'll give you the tools to help you manage, screen and rank your applicants all so you can find the right one. try zip recruiter for free today.

i am buzzed off about the way iran is continuing to hold a washington post reporter on charges of paper reporting this week that he is being charged with espionage with collaborating with hostile governments and propaganda against the establishment. people calling it absurd. and the white house spokesperson had this to say. >> if the reports are true, these should be dismissed and he should be freed immediately to rush home to his family. >> he has been held for nine months essentially for bag reporter. no civilized country shouldabout act like this. the administration needs to keep its pressure on. >> and the hillary clinton

foundation controversy. how are they handling it? >> one says principle decisiveness. cnn down plays it. marie, the only one obsessed with this are you and your cohorts at fox. let's ask about the same about republican secret donors. another, the media have been fair. when i was at last night's dinner i knew president obama would take his swipes at cable news. >> on saturday night live they impersonate brook balde baldwin, because usually the only people impersonating journalists at cnn, are journalists at contraction nn. >> and there were jokes about fox news scaring white people. not as many celebrities this year which kept the focus on

others. that's it for us today. we hope you like our facebook page. you can e-mail us. media buzz. have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday". massive aftershocks slowing down recovery efforts in nepal as the death toll climbs from yesterday's devastating earthquake. good evening, everyone. i'm julie banderas. more than 2500 dead including three americans, and many more missing. the 7.8 magnitude earthquake left those lucky enough to escape with their lives. homeless tonight, many children among them. one survivor describes the moment the quake hit. >> it took everyone by surprised and people flooded out of the shops. the street was filled. people were grabbing at each other and then everyone sort of