♪ on the buzz meter this sunday, a war of words heating up between hillary clinton and donald trump. the media can't get enough. the focus shifts from hillary's unsubstantiated debate charge from trump over isis to the donald's use of a crude term against hillary and his slam against her bathroom habits. >> where did hillary go? they had to start the debate without her, phase 2. why? i -- i know where she went. it's disgusting, i don't want to talk about it. no, it's too disgusting. >> with donald trump, my goodness, if there's a subtext, do you need a subtext? do you need to know the hidden meaning behind what is already offensive on his face? people are hyper sensitive to

everything. i thought it was a funny comment. i don't think it makes him sexist. >> are the pundits overreacting? with trump's latest attack on bill clinton, will they focus on his past misconduct? the washington post yanks a mean cartoon depicting ted cruz's children as monkeys. >> i saw that cartoon. not much ticks me off, but making fun of my girls, that will do it. >> should the newspaper apologize? plus "new york times" and other news outlets diving into virtual reality, but if the story is only virtually real, is it real journalism? i'm howard kurtz, this is "mediabuzz." it was during a democratic debate last weekend that hillary clinton came out swinging against donald trump. >> he is becoming isis' best

recruiter. they are going to people showing videos of donald trump insulting islam and muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists. >> but there's no evidence of any such video. trump pushed back hard and many journalists said clinton was wrong. >> i will demand an apology from hillary. she should apologize. she lies about e-mails. she lies about whitewater. she lies about everything. >> i was flabbergasted to her hillary clinton make up that claim about recruiting muslims to attack the united states with trump or whatever. >> everyone understands what hillary clinton said might not be true right now at this moment, but it is likely to become true. >> but that whole controversy got wiped out by trump using this yiddish expression. >> she was favored to win and she got schlonged.

she lost. i mean, she lost. >> trump insisted there was nothing controversial and blamed the mainstream media for distorting it. >> donald is likable. but i gasp when i hear you making bathroom jokes about secretary clinton or anyone. >> well, i think i'm presidential. i think i have done presidential work. >> joining us to analyze this strange turn, jonah goldburg editor at large and a fox news contributor. susan for the washington examiner and joe trippi, a fox news contributor. how is it, talking about terrorism and the economy that we all get consumed by a debate by this yiddish word that i didn't know was a verb. >> i think it was a yiddish verb, didn't know it was used in that context.

i have developed a callus about a lot of that stuff that trump does, but i think that -- because it's ratings driven, fun, easy, doesn't require a lot of explanations and the media are suckers for it. >> catnip. trump blaming the media for creating this controversy. he says this is a yiddish term that means beaten badly, though it does have another meaning. >> it's sometimes used in an alternative form, but there is an argument to be made he did mean it, and no one is really sure. the fact is really trump can say just about anything. he can say just about anything in this campaign and it's a-okay. i just question how many judgment will fall upon him in the general election when he's dealing with another group of voters. in the primary season, he can get away with it. >> let's talk about the reaction from the hillary camp. hillary clinton tweeting it's not the first time he's demonstrated a penchant for sexism.

the communications director said that. the humiliation, this degrating language inflicts on all women. the term isn't that bad. while all this war on women stuff, joe? >> this helps the hillary camp. to get in a fight with donald trump in the democratic primary, you have to talk about catnip for the media, it works for her. this whole -- >> the more we make out of it, the better it is for hillary clinton? >> absolutely. it benefits both trump and her. the more the media -- look, trump offends. the more the media gets offended by it, the more anybody who is the person who got hit by him is offended by it, the more people out there who are offended at the whole political process in this country, who are for him, dig in harder and cheer him on. this is like a self reinforcing kabuki game between the press, trump and his opponent. it works. >> so i'm looking at where this goes next.

i've heard a couple pundits say and now trump himself talking about bill clinton, trump tweeting, for example -- letting her husband out for campaign. he's demonstrated a penchant for sexism, so inappropriate and this morning, again, trump warned of bill clinton and some of the troubles of his presidency. >> i think that's absolutely fair game. first of all, hillary clinton has been of late tweeting, issues statements about how victims should -- alleged victims of sex crimes should always be believed. always be given the benefit of the doubt. that standard creates certain problems for bill clinton who has a lot of alleged victims in his past. >> what about the fact that bill clinton is not running for president at this time, but he would live in the white house if his wife were to be elected. >> i don't know that that's obvious, either, but -- you can't look -- she is running in large part on her legacy of who her husband was. she constantly talking about

how what they did when they were in the white house. she would never have been a senator had she not been first lady. she talks about the clinton record more than about the obama record. you cannot separate -- she just recently said she's not going to be called hillary rodham clinton anymore, just hillary clinton. >> as a journalistic question, how is it hillary fault that her husband messed around, as we know he did repeatedly in the past and while in the white house? >> i think voters will judge her as someone who tolerated it, and as someone who may have in some cases defended it. i think that's her real problem. this is talk and evidence that she did defend him -- >> of course she did. her version was she was deseved by her husband, that she did not know. you say she tolerated it. >> there were a lot of things happening where you can claim ignorance for only so long. for the media to just go after trump as sexist is superficial.

you have to look at him as a ceo, what he's been doing his whole life. the washington post did a great story as trump as a ceo. you have to wait until the seventh paragraph in the story before they finally say many people who worked for him said he was ahead of his time in promoting women. that's where you get into the substance of sexism. >> i think the most fascinating thing about this, regardless of whether clinton is fair game, bill clinton is fair game or not, is how -- how trump first deflects and how he does it. these are tweets. he literally just -- >> when he tweets, it makes news, and he knows that. >> that's the -- one of the big differences of this cycle. he's actually able to create media firestorm, media controversy with a simple 140 characters and he doesn't even use them all. >> i'll just make the obvious points that all of the candidates are on twitter, but most don't use it as a provocative tool the way trump

has. >> but they -- trump benefits or is hurt by -- pick your standard, by a standard that we don't apply to a lot of other politicians who say absolutely ridiculous things. joe biden says insane and ridiculous things. he's the vice president of the united states. he does it, and every time he says something crazy, that's joe, that's maybe a half hour story. >> so you're saying the media -- i know you're not a huge trump fan. >> i'm not, but you're saying the media is too hard on him. >> i'm saying they're too eager to play donald trump's game. he gets to change the subject every time he's in trouble and that plays to his advantage. >> all politicians tries to change the subject. >> but if bernie sanders could delivered 11 million viewers every time he said something controversial, there

would be plenty of people on media. >> this whole debate completely wiped out some critical coverage of hillary clinton in that debate. we showed it at the top, donald trump videos being used by isis terrorists as a recruitment tool and that's just not true. >> that's true. he literally stepped on his own story. he could have -- she should have stopped at his words are going to be used. but he takes everybody's gaze off of that and makes it about something else. >> susan, this was a situation where she did not correct the record, she did not back track, kind of like taking a page from the trump playbook and the media, i think, kind of let her get away with that. >> i think the news cycle changed so much in the last two elections that it is one

controversy a week and then that's all the public really can tolerate. that's all they have the attention span for. even if this whole controversy about the yiddish slang didn't come along, i think we would have been on to another subject, another controversy because of the nature of the campaign. >> on twitter it's one controversy an hour. fox business debate january 14th. new criteria. you can be in the top six nationally in the polls, top five in iowa or top five in new hampshire. that may exclude a lot of people. may only be six or seven people on the stage. rand paul says he won't show up for any undercard debate. if you tell people with three weeks to go, you destroy a campaign. this isn't the job of media to pick who wins. >> i think it is a good format. we have seen people explode out of the undercard and have a shot to do that three weeks before the election, i think rand paul is wrong on that subject. >> should the networks be

winnowing the field at this point by setting a higher bar? >> i'm torn. i would have rather had a criteria like this six, eight months ago. now the polls are a ridiculous standard to have for the debates. and measuring where the voters are and where people are meeting the candidates, would have been better if we had that earlier. >> smaller field, more substance. that's what we need to see with these candidates. less one-line zingers. more substance about what they plan to do. >> no question it would be a better debate with fewer people, but there's often one languishing that breaks out. >> that's why we use the iowa and new hampshire polls. including state polls, let me get a break here, weigh in on twitter. e-mail us, fox news, media buzz at fox news.com. we'll examine the media's mistakes and misjudgments in this presidential campaign over the past year, but when we come back, ted cruz says the liberal media is trying to destroy his

family after a washington post cartoonist goes after his kids.

ann telnaes said she decided that ted cruz' kids were fair game since they showed up in the tv ad that had the family scoring humorous political points by reading from christmas classics like the grinch who lost their e-mails. >> i saw that cartoon, not much ticks me off, but making fun of

my girls, that will do it. don't mess with my kids. don't mess with marco's kids. don't mess with hillary's kids. don't mess with anybody's kids. leave kids alone. they took that cartoon down within hours, and no apology from the paper. >> i also note that president obama, when he was run, used his two daughters in a christmas ad. it is pretty common. so for her to say since he used his kids in an ad, that takes away the rule that children are off limits and i can portray them as monkeys in an ad that doesn't sit well with me. what bothers me is there was no apology from the post even though was clearly a double standard and they just overlooked it, didn't see it before it went in, that's shoddy journalism. >> it's hard to look at everything in advantage. these girl of 7 appeared 5 years old, but liberal media are

trying to destroy me and my family. some say he's trying to have it both i was, he's offended. >> first the post should have apologized, but politicians have their kids -- very few use them as a parody attack on another candidate. and then to do basically hit me again, you know, hey, i got hit, send me money, which is what he's been doing, which is, hey, since, you know, that's -- there is nothing new about that anymore either. but he's trying to have this both ways, creating an uproar and sympathy to get more money. >> rick tyler told me yes, we're raising money off this, but it doesn't begin to make up for the damage. he's a dad and feels like his kids were portrayed as animals. there seems to be a pretty wide consensus here this was a bad thing for the washington post to do. >> i think almost everybody agrees on that. i think one of the things -- what enrages more people is the

double standard, the human cry if someone had done this to the obama girls, which would have seemed like it was a racial jab, nonetheless, it would have been overwhelming. and to this day, if you criticize chelsea clinton, i think she's a 35-year-old woman on the campaign trail for the -- it still seems like that's out of bounds. >> one, making fun of the kids in itself was bad, but then portraying them as monkeys is just bad. they shouldn't have done it. they should have apologized for it. >> we have an example, the thanksgiving pardon ceremony last year, a congressional aide criticized sasha and malia over their dress, saying show a little class, a huge media uproar and the woman lost her job. it seems like the media reaction has been muted compared to that. >> it has, and partly it was the content of the cruz ad because it was a parody, weren't just sitting there saying merry christmas on television.

but perhaps we're reaching a new era, where the off-limits things are no longer off-limits. i have seen a few chelsea cartoons, i did a quick look. i think we're creeping into that new phase now. >> so much for standards. thank you for stopping by this sunday. up next ben carson does some interview s about shaking up his campaign, backs off and then blames the press. the latest person to land a coveted interview with hillary clinton.

ben carson has charged again and again that the media unfairly treat him. that's what he told me when several media outlets raised questions about his story. are you saying organizations like politico, cnn, "wall street journal" are deliberately trying to damage you? >> yes.

to put it simply. >> why? >> because when you deliberately lie and put that out as a story, or you do shabby investigation and say we have investigated and we can't find anything, i mean, is that an acceptable standard? >> this week carson got into a media mess of his own making. it's no secret he's been sinking in the polls. amid questions about his foreign policy knowledge. on wednesday morning he invited a reporter to his home to say he was unhappy with his campaign staffers, some whom he said were overpa overpaid. carson saying, i'm looking at every aspect of the campaign, everything is on the table. every job is on the table. he wouldn't even say he planned to keep the campaign manager, carson made similar comments to the associated press. in fact his press secretary declaring dr. carson is back in charge, racing the often question of who had been in

charge before that. long time adviser armstrong williams, who appears at odds with the campaign manager told the post to take what the candidate said seriously. after a lot of back and forth he said he has 100% confidence in my campaign and blamed the washington post in an interview with cnn's don lemon. >> clearly there some concern, because you told "the washington post" today that you were shaking up your campaign. >> i think "the washington post" quite frankly had their story already written before they talked to me, and they were convinced that i was going to fire everybody and we were going to go in a completely different direction and that's absolutely not true. >> it seems to me what they're guilty of is quoting his own words of an imminent staff shake-up. and -- the press sometimes has been unfair to dr. carson, but it makes little sense to complain when the source of the

story is your own on the record interview. coming up, how did the media establishment so badly blow it again and again on donald trump's candidacy. later is virtual reality of future of journalism or a distorted mirror? journalism or distorted mirror?

the wildest presidential campaign of my lifetime, and the mainstream media have consistently been an and embarrassingly been wrong, missing the mood of the can country, exaggerating the strength of some candidates and from the beginning utterly misjudging donald trump. >> i think this is donald trump's biggest day and he will be ignored from henceforth. >> what makes mr. trump particularly interesting, is a, he's very injurious to the republican parties. he takes some of the most interesting field since the

republicans first fielded a candidate in 1856, and makes it look silly. >> "the daily news" put s this picture crown runs for business. >> it's doing no business whatsoever. they do that for circulation. >> i sat down with two of my favorite commentators. >> mercedes sclapp, former aid to george bush and all those months in which the media dismissed and denied and mocked and minimized donald trump's candidates, was this one of the worst media misjudgments ever? >> absolutely. i think the media needs to get out of the prediction game. for months after months, they said this donald trump he's surging in the summer, but in the fall, he's going down. and back in september, you would start seeing stories come out.

politico had an article saying the surge is ending. well, that's not happening. again, they should stick to basic reporting. >> whether you like trump or don't like trump. the notion he was the side show, the summer entertainment, did it show the media to be kind of out of touch? >> i think the media has definitely underestimated the degree of anger and fear in the country, and that's exactly what he's channeling. he's done a brilliant job. the wackier he gets, and the more outrageous, the media would say, this is the moment, and the voters say, no, we love it. bring more. >> why did the media underestimate the degree of anger and anxiety and disgust with the political establishment? >> well, i think a lot of the media doesn't quite understand the base that he's speaking to, in terms of their fears and just how hard life has been for a lot of these people, or the kind of working-class demographics that know that life is never going to

be the same for them again, donald trump is speaking to them in a way -- >> and donald trump has changed the model for the media and campaigning in general, for the most part, a candidate, for example works through their spokespeople. for example, they have offices where you have to call the multiple times to even try to talk to a surrogate. that's not what donald trump does. he picks up a phone, calls a reporter and he's the one that's able to drive the narrative, drive the conversation. that has been a model for change. also some that traditional campaigns need to revisit. >> one article was how his stint in reality tv turned him into the perfect candidate this time. say outrageous things, don't hedge your bets, just straight shooting and being out there as much as possible, made him the perfect candidate this time around. >> this goes beyond trump. i think if ben carson, when he

was hot, i think most journalists couldn't quite understand his appeal either. it really comes back to the disgust with the political establishment and the disgust with the media establishment. people think those are so kind of same thing or so intertwined that we are just in this bubble and didn't understand what a lot of real americans think. >> this comes back to 2011 when you had in the other election, for example, where it was herman cane, michele bachmann and they're going why are these personalities rising up? when mitt romney became the nominee, they're, like, okay, we got an establishment person. so in this case, with this narrative of the outsider being so strong, the voters being so angry at the establishment, so angry at the media, they decide, guess what, we're not going to listen to the mainstream media, we're going to go ahead and say -- we're going to go with this one guy, the guy speaking for us.

>> in every campaign the press underestimates a candidate that surges or thinking someone will run away with it. i still think it's something deeper. that's why i give a real failing grade. when you had trump coming up, whether it's the comments about mexican immigrants or muslims, or john mccain, megyn kelly, whatever. many people in the press would say aha, this is it, and he has gone too far and he would go up in the polls and we would look like we were completely clueless. >> what people like is he's mocking the powerful people who they feel look down on them or rigged the game and he gets to play above the game. they love it when he starts gigging the usual political rules don't apply to him and political people. he doesn't have to pay attention to. he talks about how he's donated money to all these people so he knows they're corrupt. people are eating it up.

they feel like the game is stacked against them. >> the voters don't want to be told by the media pundits, what to think, who to choose and that's why there is such an appeal again for at this point a donald trump. >> i don't think we're telling them what to think. people in the opinion business say i like this person -- >> but you have to argue, howie, the majority of the media pundits, they say how can trump not be falling? how is this possible? he keeps saying outrageous statements and comments and it is not reflected in the numbers. i think it's one of the examples of why trump does go after these media pundit types. steven hayes, charles krauthammer who we all love, but he goes after them and people are, like, i don't know if i want to listen to the media pundits out there. it's almost a conflict that donald trump is creating. it's a constant war. looking back at the democratic campaign, hillary clinton has

had had very testy relations with the press. this time was supposed to be different. a lot of it relate to the e-mail scandal. why do so many people believe the press is in the tank for her? >> there's always an assumption there's a liberal media bias, so hillry is a democrat, so it must be this media bias. but you are correct, whatever ideological rules are ever at play, the press loves to jump on the clintons. anything they do becomes big news and gets fine-toothed combed and anything she does is not going to go underneath the radar. she didn't like the press. she never will be one of those john mccain let's get on the bus and ride the bus together. >> in fact there was a couple months whether she gave no media interviews. the clinton foundation as well, but eventually that story

started to run out of gas, because there were no new revelation, and then the refrain became we're giving hillary clinton a pass except she's not in a very competitive race. >> that's true. i think the clintons have their own political reality show. >> everyone has one. >> exactly. but they did have months of coverage on the e-mails, on benghazi. it's just not as interesting as covering the gop -- i don't want to call it a circus, a party that is going on. >> it's a horse race. a cage match. >> they thought bernie sanders, there was a feel the berne, we're there, but hillary clinton has this nomination, and it's -- it's a done story. >> short answer from me to you. to what extent of media fact checkers increasingly seen as

partisan or pushing an agenda and what they say doesn't matter? >> i think all the media is viewed with suspicion in these areas, and i think people can dismiss whatever they don't like. >> i take politi-fact and they do the truth or false, and 32 true comments to hillary clinton. how many to donald trump? zero. if they copt couldn't find one true comment that donald trump made, i would say that's biased. >> so you think they are partisan? >> yes. find out 29 statements on each side. >> thanks very much for joining us. next on "mediabuzz," from presidential debate moderator to the bill cosby debacle. we'll look at some of our top interviews this year. and who needs journalist when you have jerry seinfeld driving to the white house.

time now for some of our most noteworthy interviews. the first fox news debate was big, drawing the largest cable audience in cable history. and controversial, drawing criticism from donald trump. i sat done with bret and megyn. >> when you asked jeb bush about those who died in your brother's war, when you asked donald trump about nasty comments he made about women on twitter about

their looks -- when you asked ben carson about his inexperience, did you work about blowback? >> no, we had anticipated that some of the audience might boo us during the middle of our questions. that was okay. they can boo us, and some people are booing us now on twitter, but that's all part of it. i think people feel very passionately about their candidates. i completely understand that, but my job is not to feel passionately. my job is to go out and ask probing questions that are hopefully smart and help people learn something about this person, and in this context he weaknesses. >> with the question about would anybody rule out a third-party bid, clearly aimed at donald trump, who thought it was unfair, why was he being targeted. why was he being targeted? >> to be honest it was a question that hovered away this debate, all of this talk about an independent run if he doesn't get the nod, and frankly he

didn't know who was going to raise their hand or not. i thought that either -- i was more prepared to have no one raise their hand and say, mr. trump, just to be clear, you have raised the prospect in recent weeks of an independent run. are you saying you're making this pledge. one of the biggest stories was the downfall of bill cosby, as dozens of women came forward. so say he had drugged and sexually assaulted them. we sat down with one of them. barbara bowman. you say bill cosby drugged you and raped you when you were a 17-year-old aspirg actress. what happened when you first told people about that? >> i told my agent. she did nothing about it. no one believed me at all. in fact, eventually i even went to an attorney and he laughed me right out of his office. >> wow. why do you think about the rest of the media?

why do you think it took so long? >> i was threatened into silence. and the people i did tell did nothing to help me at all. stepping down from "face the nation" after half a century. i asked hem to reflect on president obama and the press. >> many of people think the three media networks are two biased, too liberal. do you think they gave barack obama an easy ride? and for much of the presidency? >> well, i think the whole political world was struck by this fella who sort of came out of nowhere with this very unusual name. when he won out in iowa, i think people sat up and took notice. >> but isn't it the job of journalists to be skeptical of even a young phenom? >> it is. it is. maybe we were not skeptical enough. it was a campaign -- >> bob woodward may be the most

famous advocate of long-form investigation. talking about hillary clinton, you said this, we're going to find out my newspaper, your network, all the organizations is going to do a 20,000 word biography of every stage of her life. it struck me as an old-fashioned observation. what seems to drive the news cycle, the quick hits, pithy tweets, viral video. >> but if you find something that is new and explains who these people are, that will drive the news cycle. people will read it, or maybe they won't read all 30,000 words, as frequently happens, but they will guess the essence, because it will become part of the discuss. >> how would you cover donald trump, who not only seems to be a lot of attacks in the

media, but that criticism from the media in many ways seems to make him strong i, but if i were doing trump, i would do 50,000 words and do each deal and look at how did he get his money. >> i hope woodward is right about in-depth journalism. after the break, even "new york times" ombudsman is questioning the boundaries. our digital download returns in a moment.

digital download segment, some news organizations are trying to get in on the virtual reality craze made popular by video games. here is a glimpse from "the new york times." >> people walking on the left

and then walking the body, someone with the glue and pick up the glue stick. dry faster. i'm rolling. if you're enhancing reality, is that really journalism. we discussed it with a tech analyst here in washington. we're going to plunge into the world of virtual reality. check it out. very impressive. this came at my new york times -- >> you can try. >> i wasn't going to try. >> it is a google cardboard thing, you put your phone in here and you can see your stories in virtual reality. this is among the news organizations that see this as a new form of storytelling. is this really a future avenue for journalism. >> i'm excited about virtual reality. i think it is a great way to immerse yourself in an experience and whether that is games now is a major one -- but

telling a news story is a completely new frontier and excites me in a way that -- >> feels like a gimmick to me. >> well, this screams gimmick. but i think what -- they're trying to show they're aware there is new technology out there, to take advantage of them. they're trying to figure out a new way to exude empathy from their readers and doing that by creating some news stories in virtual reality, i think it is cool -- >> empathy. >> i think they're trying to reach people who are 20 years old who don't like to raitt newspapers. >> that could also be the case. i hear people aren't ascribing to the new york times, could get them to do that. i wonder about, wonder your opinion about the ethics of creating a new story i and an

immersisive experience. >> it seems like as everybody uses phone to create video at an event and trying to explore new technologies. but i read a letter from the times who said this seems based often the description in his opinion it will be based on -- and isn't that tantamount to faking a scene? and i thought maybe he has a point. >> he might. what they're doing to create the scenes is often placing a camera in the middle of a hotel room with mirrors and get different angles. one interesting part is what they use to re-create. as a witness said in the police report, what do you use and how do you give a disclosure? is there a disclosure that says this is based off an outside witness statements. how do they tell you that this might not actually be what

really happened. >> at what point do you move from being a journalist to steven spielberg. if you set it up too much, the photographer is creating or augmenting his own reality and that's passed on as news. people look at this thing and know they're getting a kind of staged event. >> the cost of producing these is insane. it is tens of thousands of dollars, $50,000 for some of the short clips. that's cost prohibitive in the beginning. how do you decide which stories to spend to bring it to an audience. >> and how many clicking do you get? >> it is now part of a gimmick. we're hip. work of the new technology will be used in the future to report and we're taking a stab at it. >> you sound rl? i don't know how -- >> do it in the privacy of your own home.

>> thank you. we'll post some of the digital download segments on our page. hillary clinton hanging around with the -- is this all a little loopy?

time for your top tweets on the coverage of donald trump using that yiddish street term and hillary's charge of sexism. plan b, this could have been the dumbest story of the year, nothing the mainstream media won't overreact to these days to fill air time. tony, the media are way too soft on trump. jessica, media are biased. shameful. stand for america. like the media being fair and covering hillary's lie about a trump video. we'll never be fair to trump. president obama seemingly talk ed to every weird alternative outlet to zach galifianakis but never been on comedians in cars getting coffee.

>> you have to have something you're looking forward to next. >> what are you looking forward to right now? >> getting the hell out of this car. >> yes, the president will be in one of those cars with jerry seinfeld. they'll never leave the white house grounds. we all remember the moments when obama spoke to youtube personality glozell green, famous for taking a bath in froot loops and milk. >> so i have green lipstick, one for your first wife -- >> my first wife? >> i mean -- >> do you know something i don't? >> oh, for the first lady. >> and glozell's next big get, an interview with hillary clinton. we have the pictures to prove it. what can we expect? >> i'm excited. i'm nervous. but i can't wait to meet our next and first female president. >> no froot loops but clearly ready to give hillary a warm

bath. that's it for this edition of media buzz. i'm howard kurtz. hope you had a great christmas. enjoy the holiday weekend. check out our facebook page, give us a like and we'll be back next sunday live with the latest buzz. new devastation in the south. good evening, everyone. i'm julie banderas. this is "the fox report." texas was hit hard in another series of deadly tornadoes including a massive ef-4 twister. to put that in perspective for you, the scale only goes up to 5. at least 11 weather-related deaths reported in texas alone. a twister carving a path of destruction in rowland, 25 miles northeast of dallas. and the damage you see here is part of a roughly 40-mile stretch obliterated in the storms. people here are used to seeing their share of severe weather, but many say