on our buzz meter, the republican contest heads straight into the gutter. first by degenerating into a war over the wives with donald trump angry about a nude picture of his wife making a twitter threat to expose ted cruz's wife and the senator lashing out. >> i don't get angry often. but you mess with my wife, you mess with my kids, that will do it every time. donald, jur a coward and leave heidi alone. >> cruz also denouncetion a "national enquirer" story as garbage. are the media wallowing in this sleazy stuff? shifting focus to tough terror talk and finger pointing. >> donald trump and barack obama have to understand one thing,

that america does lead the world. it is extraordinary you have the leading candidate in the republican side saying torture first, ask questions later. >> i've been saying for years that president obama strategy of containing isis is dangerous and puts the entire world at risk. and hillary clinton, the architect of the libya mess, doesn't steam have a strategy either. >> you look at ted cruz talking about orwellian presences in american neighborhoods where muslims live, it's the exact thing that we're supposed to do. >> is the press turning the tragedy into another ideological blame game? plus, millions more in damages against gawker for proposing that sex tape of hulk hogan who slammed his adversary to the mat. >> i will be naked forever. you know? until my children's children's children die because of the internet. >> we'll talk about the impact on journalistic freedom with a fox reporter who just interviewed hulk. i'm howard kurtz and this is

"media buzz." >> mrs. trump made an unwanted appearance in the campaign when the pact make america awesome posted this on facebook, a nude image from her modelling days warning this could be america's next first lady unless people vote for ted cruz. trump responded with this tweet which we quickly deleted then restored after others found it. wow, senator ted cruz that, is some low level ad did you using a picture of melani nah a gq shoot. be careful or i'll spill the beans about your wife. first trump was classless an a coward to attack heidi. both of them responded to reporters. >> you probably know by now that most of the things that donald trump says have no basis in reality. >> i don't get angry often. but you mess with my wife and you mess with my kids, that will do it every time. donald, jur a coward and leave

heidi the hell alone. >> then there were the unproven allegations in the "national enquirer" which we'll get to in a moment. joining me, dale trotter, commentator that writes for "the daily caller" on the hill and ashley parker and a co-host of "outnumbered." ashley, ordinarily i would say, wow, there is really low stuff. but the two frontrunners slamming each other, how can journalists resist? >> exactly. it became part of the discussion and they're going back and forth. i think it is a little salacious and a little fun. but it also sort of speaks -- >> you admit that it's fun? >> i admit that it's fun, not good for democrat sishgs but fun. and, you know, also sort of speaks to as senator cruz said, it speaks to character and what voters are looking for. i was at a focus group in st. louis and among those who didn't love donald trump, one of the things they mngsed it is wasn't substantive. it was stylistic. this helps voters make that

stylistic impression of this is someone we want in the oval office. >> which is the more important story among the competing themes for the press? trump's bringing to the defense of his wife, blaming cruz for a $300 ad that had nothing to do with the cruz campaign or cruz with a sound bite that we've seen 10,000 times calling donald a snibling coward? >> i disagree with ashley. i say this coverage is not fun and that it demonstrates a warfare by donald trump. and you have the things that the media can be reporting on, those three different things. >> so you're embarrassed by the coverage? >> i would say i'm disheartened by the coverage. and the media is treating this as a said, she said. donald trump does what no other candidates are willing to do. and he goes places that no other candidates are willing to go. and so in this case, the media covering it, like cruz is doing the same thing as trump is doing, when cruz complimented

donald trump's wife and as you noted, donald trump retweeted an insulting picture of heidi cruz and made a commentary as well. >> side by side pictures. >> yes. julie, trump said he might have to spill the beans on heidi cruz and there was speculation this may have to do with period, a decade ago when she was going through depression and strain in her marriage. that's been reported by "the new york times" and others. so what did you make of that particular tactic? >> the tactic that donald trump once again is going in the gutter. i she is right this is not symetrical. the reality is that ted cruz had nothing to do with this ad but this pact did nothing more than put out a picture that melania trump posed for. it's not even a picture of her. it's not even a hulk hogan situation that got hacked. it's been on the internet. donald trump himself seemed very proufd it. he has a beautiful wife and she has a right to pose wherever she

wants. you have donald trump, instead of coming o out and saying, listen, i'm proud of my wife. this is what she did in her career. i'm proud she made the cover of gq and goes to attack heidi cruz reminds me of when osama bin laden and 9/11. one had nothing to do with the other. poor heidi cruz ends up a victim in all of this. and the media has been covering it as a tit for tat and donald trump was clearly in the wrong and ted cruz had nothing to do with this. >> cruz has seized on this. >> and he should. of course he should. >> ad as well he should. >> megyn kelly tweeted, seriously? donald trump has taken plenty of shots at her. but the reporter story now, there is one in your paper, democratic strategy is to portray trump as an unabbased sexist. trump's critics see the latest

a ain a troubling pattern. and then trump in his twitter response said the press is going out of its way to convince people i don't like or respect women when just the opposite is true. >> i think when the media covers this and reports on what donald trump is doing, it is sort of exactly, it gets to a pattern, right? a pattern of character. as you said, when trump retweeted that, can you argue that him not just justifying heidi cruz and being unfair to her but objectifying his wife. the media reports on what's going on with donald trump p and megyn kelly and what donald trump said about car lee fiorina and what he is now saying about heidi cruz and even his wife, then voters can draw their conclusions. is this a pattern of behavior? typically when they see a pattern, that's when it sticks in the eejer and makes an impression. >> trump is taking the position that it is the press creating or embellishing this pattern. let me turn to this other matter now. we were not planning to touch this story about ted cruz and

the "national enquirer" because this particular story right here offers no concrete evidence of cruz supposedly, algdzly having multiple affairs. but the senator was quick to denounce it. >> let me be clear. this "national enquirer" story is garbage. it is complete and utter lies. it is a tabloid smear. and it is a smear that has come from donald trump and his henchmen. >> we have the opposite problem. there is no evidence that trump or his campaign was behind this storey. trump says in a statement he has no idea whether the piece is true and didn't know about it and absolutely nothing to do with it. gale, the dilemma for the press here is whether to run with these unproven allegation that's use words like rumors, quoting snitches, saying things like supposedly. >> they shouldn't run with it. the story itself shows that the "national enquirer" has a complete lack of evidence under

the law a public figure has to have a much higher standard to prove defamation. and that's why if you look at the article itself, it conceals the identity of the five women in this story. and so for the press to run with this, it shows that they are taking something that is not sourced that, does not have evidence and trying to insert it in presidential campaign. >> i think many news organizations, not all, were trying to ignore it. but then as we just played, senator cruz added the meeting with reporters and not in response to a specific question brought it up. how should that change the equation? >> i think it makes it more complicated certainly. i think there are rumors have been around for a while in washington and a lot of media organization dz nothing with them. didn't even try to report them out. they appear, the "national enquirer" and the morning begins and everyone is thinking we're going to steer clear of this muck. you know, it's unproven. there is no names. you know, no name sources. >> the "new york times" was not planning to follow up. >> i don't think it was something we were going to

report on, no. but then when senator ted cruz and brings it out unprompted, we do report on what the candidates say and he's using it to attack donald trump. again, it sort of becomes injected into the discussion. >> this is the flip side of what you were saying in taking issue with trump blaming ted cruz for the independent pacts picture. this morning on abc trump said he thinks that cruz came pain may have bought the rights to the picture and given it to this small pact. i don't see any evidence of. that but cruz is making a very serious dirty tricks charge here by blaming it on trump and it seems he doesn't have any evidence to back up. >> he doesn't. he can potentially lly be defa donald trump saying he planted the story. although we probably suspect he probably did. >> you suspect? >> exactly right. exactly right. but look what donald trump has

done to the press. this is a great scam thm weekend. he did a very detailed story with maggie abrams in "the new york times" where he talked about his vision for the country if he were president. >> for over an hour and a half. >> full of detail that frankly were head spinning to a lot of us. nobody is really focused on. that instead, we're spending time talking about whether ted cruz may have had affairs with one to five women, whether this is a hulk hogan situation where melania trump's picture got bought by him despite the fact that it's in the public domain. and so this is why he is so brilliant at playing the press. we're not talking about substance. we're talking about essentially what hulk hogan was talking about in the trials. >> by the way, the ener quirer s it is true that trump is friendly with the sceo of the n

enquirer and only one of trump's friends is quoted. i don't that i is good enough for journalistic standards. i've done a lot of reporting on the enquirer. it was correct about john edwards and having a love trial and tiger woods having mistresses, sometimes it's a way of getting sources to come out of the wood work. they hope to get to a more did he fintive story. twint play a moment. this is how they were acknowledging the "national enquirer" story. this say moment with cnn and then two guests, one was adrian cohen, a boston harold columnist who happens to support donald trump and the other guest was amanda cochran who had worked until fairly recently with ted cruz. look at what happened. >> i would like ted cruz to issue a statement whether or not the "national enquirer's" story is true that he has had affairs

with many women including you were named, amanda. will you denounce this story? or will counsel firm it. >> let's be very clear. cnn has no reporting on what you're talking about coming from the "national enquirer." amanda, go ahead. >> what is out there is tabloid trash f someone wants to comment on it, they can talk to my lawyer. and it is categorically false. you should be ashamed for spreading this kind of smut. >> yeah. >> i'm just speechless thinking about cnn and baldwin and the anchor allowing her to go on national television on a station like cnn and republish that defamation. it is really shocking that she didn't cut off the discussion right away. >> yeah. it's hard to react in a moment. kate baldwin should not have let it go on. she had to give amanda a chance to respond and she did very forcefully. but it kind of made me cringe that this unsubstantiated allegation was repeated. >> we're setting a precedent

where somebody can say on television will you stop beating your wife and you have to respond to this allegation. inexcusable. i don't -- i have a lot of sympathy for kate baldwin. she cut it off. adrian cohen owe this is woman a huge apology. fwhut is where we got to in the cycle. this is what we're talking about. we're talking -- excuse me, women are having arguments with each other. >> let me get in here. fox's got a story on hulk hog hogan's trial and the bombing in brussels and h

hours after the terror attacks in brussels, donald

trump accepted an invitation to go on the today show and hillary clinton denied. that kicked off a fierce debate among the pundits and the candidate. >> it's what donald trump said about water boarding that had hillary clinton responding and quickly. >> for hillary clinton, a chance to prove her national security credentials. for donald trump, an opportunity to see seem more presidential one day after calling for controversial cuts to nato. >> donald trump and ted cruz pushing controversial plans to fight isis. hillary clinton says they're guilty of being bigots. >> have the belgian bombings, what a tragedy, push the media into a more serious debate about terrorism? >> i would hope that that would be the case. but i don't think so. i think any time you have a terrorist attack in the west, we have wall to wall it 24/7 coverage of the attack because audiences want to know the details. they want to know what happens. but as soon as that -- the details are released, the coverage dies down and then the press can't really come forward

with any information that public wants. like they want to know how do we defeat the bad guys? and do you -- does the press have any credible information about imminent threats? and the media doesn't come up with that. so then we don't get into the bigger debate about how do we handle this. >> at least until we all got diverted into the stuff we were talking about, this was a story for the reporters. >> i think it was. it is not only something we covered in term of the event itself but in terms wlaf the candidates were saying about it. but i think it also changed the lens through which we viewed what they were saying about it. so, for instance, before the attack, donald trump unveiled five foreign policy advisors that were not known in the community. he made comments about -- >> some of them are. >> getting out of nato and then -- >> or at least adjusting the role. >> yeah. and then those comments are sort of viewed through a different lens after the attacks and thanlt view, 100 minutes with

"the new york times" on foreign policy, i think we may have talked about other things. i think it led our home page and front page. i think people are interested in reading that. this man could be commander in chief. >> are we in a post attack climate now where they slam hillary clinton on takerism? >> we are and it's going to continue until the election is over. i fear it's going to continue even after the president is sworn in because the building behind us is so completely polarized to the point where there is no working with anybody anymore. i remember being here on 9/11. i don't remember this coverage after 9/11 where people were turning on each other and assigning blame. i fear this is the new normal for us among the public at large. >> that was a time when the country did come together. ashley, do you think the media overplayed this story? let's put up pictures here. president obama stayed in cuba after the brussels bombing, didn't cut short the trip and went to a baseball game.

the optics were not great. >> yeah. you know, the president got a lot of criticism and conservative media for. this his response was that, you know, the goal of terrorism is sort of to disrupt our ordinary lives and he was not going to disrupt his life. it didn't seem to me like a huge story. it was certainly something where you had kind of that polarizing commentary and think what conservatives sail versus what liberals say. >> gale, going on to argentina and dancing the tango with that woman, you also thought that was -- >> unseemly. >> is that a controversy? >> definitely. and the conservative media covered it. it was picked up by mainstream media as well. certainly there are pictures of him with the tango dancer were very dramatic contrast to the people leading bleeding in the of brussels. >> the misstep was so briefly addressing the belgian bombings and going back to leave aside the fact these are things do you whether you visit the other

countries. all right. thank you very much for joining us this sunday. up next, more on how the media are covering the belgian bombing case and whether that story will soon fade. later, charles krout hammer an missing donald trump's appeal to republicans and whether it's too late for conservatives to stop him. [bassist] two late nights in tucson. blew an amp.but good nights. sure,music's why we do this,but it's still our business. we spend days booking gigs, then we've gotta put in the miles to get there. but it's not without its perks. like seeing our album sales go through the roof enough to finally start paying meg's little brother- i mean,our new tour manager-with real,actual money. we run on quickbooks.that's how we own it.

. the awful news from brussels broke last week and joining us from new york, a columnist for media ice. television news devoted a lot of resources to this story with anchors like lester holt, matt lauer and others going to brussels. how long will this focus last? >> i think it will last fairly long time. what we're seeing here is the media is correctly using the paris playbook. what does that mean? after paris, yes, you covered the terror attacks. but there were raids. there were arrests, and there were confrontations during the

arrest that's led to compelling television and obviously good journalism. i think the media has seen what happened in paris in november and say we're going to keep our resource there's for an indefinite period of time because of those reasons and unfortunately maybe another shoe will drop in term of another attack. >> right. despite what the diversions that we talked about earlier in the program, trump and cruz and the wives, do you feel this is a moment one moment when the media actually turned serious and gave this kind of story, this kind of tragedy the attention that it deserves? >> yes. it absolutely, howie. the fear is very real. if you remember what the president said after san bernardino, i'm not watching enough cable news to understand the fear and anxiety that is out. there i can tell you, i flew out of new york on wednesday and if you know that airport, the security line to go through security is about 20 feet from the main entrance way. all i was doing personally was looking at the entranceway to see if anyone is walking in with a lug annage carrier and one black glove on their hand. the tension was very real.

60 people standing in a soft target a day after an attack in brussels. the fear is very real and new reality that we live in unfortunately, howie. it has nothing to do with cable news coverage that, i can tell you. >> yeah. implicit in president obama's remarks is that cable news is whipping people up to an irrational response. but through all the it views with the national security experts and retired generals but with local police and local airport authorities and could this happen in our town? do you think that has the cumulative effect of making people more scared? >> i think does it, howie. you look at the diversity of soft targets that have happened. in paris, it was at a cafe outside of a soccer stadium at a rock concert hall, san bernardino, office christmas party n brussels, before the security checkpoint at an airport and in a subway. think of it. if you're just a regular person in new york or even a suburb like san bernardino, isis has shown they can attack anywhere

any time. it's not cable news saying this is a problem. it's reality. >> you feel it reflects the actual legitimate concerns of people that their town, cities, stadiums could be next. and not just overdramatizing? >> i believe that, howie. and we're seeing it and it happens not only in towns obviously san bernardino and brussels and paris but there were two attacks in turkey this month that barely anybody is talking about. that is a nato member. one happened in istanbul. 34 people killed by isis by a suicide bomber. barely any coverage of that. so what was happening strictly over there being baghdad or damascus is happening everywhere, i'm afraid from what we're seeing. it's going to continue to happen for a long time. >> all right. thank you very much for joining us this morning. >> coming up, charles krouthammer on why the war of words with donald trump turned so personal on both sides. later, could the huge

verdict against gawker who just interviewed hulk hogan.

does the stop trump movement have any chance of derailing the donald i sat down with charles krauthammer, author and fox news contributor here in studio one. >> charles, welcome. >> pleasure to be here. >> is it fair to say that for many months you misjudged donald trump's appeal to republicans? >> yes. >> why? >> well, because i found his appeal so unappealing that i found that unfathomable that he would go under such a large constituency. i still remain mildly amazed by the phenomenon. but i know longer deny it. >> mildly amazed, not shocked. out of denial which is a good sign. last august in the candidate casino and special report, you

had more money on bush and rubio of you put the first bets on trump and cruz. $80 for trump, $10 for cruz. whin when i interviewed trump, he brought you up. he says you never have anything nice to say about him. and he also said that some of the commentators that didn't necessarily say you, he feels have a personal hatred for him. >> i think he feels that about everybody. if you ask him to evaluate anyone, remember at the end of the maureen dowd column he was asked how do you feel about x, y, z? she went through all these. if you look at that, some of them are athletes or whatever. his answers is, yes, so and. so he likes me. good guy. so and so, good friend. good guy. everything is in relation to how they feel about him. so i'm sure he feels that -- i have absolutely no anainst him . i have no reason to. he had not become a presidential candidate, i mean, i don't talk about him otherwise.

i just think he's a candidate and maybe he will win although i'd be surprised. i think he'd be very bad for the country. that's the only criteria by which i judge him. >> for example, when he gave the speech to apac, a support for israel rs you said he is uttering the necessary cliches. that sounds like you weren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. >> right. i would have said that about any of the other speeches. i didn't find any of them creative. it's clear that he doesn't know the middle east very well. i actually believe that when he said i'd be neutral, neutrality, that was not an intentional codeword. you know, the language of the middle east is a host of code words. even handedness, neutrality has a certain meaning. so, of course, it was interpreted as anti-israel which is what it means in the lexicon. i am sure that that was not his intention. he meant it as a layman much

here's a guy that doesn't know the language and not fluent in the issues, didn't know hamas from hezbollah a few months ago. clearly was reading the speech written for him. you know, if you have a ted cruz speaking or hillary clinton who especially hillary clinton who has been immersed in the issues, i would have a different reaction. i thought he did very well with the speech. >> is the core of your opposition to trump as opposed to say ted cruz who is a -- an aggressive conservative, do you feel he's not really conservative? >> if it were only that, i think it would -- my open silt would be a lot less than it is. there are other candidates who are not that conservative, take a rand paul. he's a libertarian, conservative in some ways. he is not somebody i would have supported. but i hardly argue against the candidacies the way i have against trump. it is also the matter of temperment which i don't have to

spell out. it is written all over him and the stuff he's done with cruz, megyn kelly with a whole list of things. and that kind of temperment i think is so inappropriate for a president. >> you don't have -- >> in and of itself -- well not in the sense that i see it in trump. cruz may not be the most likeable guy. but you don't want to elect somebody because you have a beer with him. >> i want to get to another question. >> the question is the judgment, does he have the wisdom, does he have the self-restraint to be in the oval office? >> here's the mainstream media take right now. the republican party can go along with trump's nomination which would rupture the party or deny him the nomination at a contested convention which would rupture the party. are they both true? >> they could both be true. i think it depends how they go into the convention. if trump, is you know, a three foot putt away from the majority, say 100 seats, 50 seats, then i think there's a

sense in which he deserved it or he got near to it. technically not, i guess he could be stopped. i think you could then justify the argument. but if he's simply ahead of cruz -- >> he's on the 16th hole of the golf course. >> he's ahead by two. it's not a gimme at that point. then we all know famously lincoln was not leading in the delegates when he was nominated for the president i 1860. >> last question, which will have a bigger impact on the campaign snt bombings in brussels and all of the terror issues that it raises or the spat going on between ted cruz and donald trump about their wives and now this "national enquirer" story about cruz and the more tabloidy stuff? >> i would divide the naens two. in the primaries, i think it haas has been, will be terrorism that trump campaign took off like a rocket after the paris attacks. it seemed to retro actively justify some of the scandalous stuff he said and the stuff that

came after which is the barring of muslims. in a general election, i think the wife stuff, the gutter stuff, the crazy stuff, that's going to carry over. it's not going to affect primary because people have -- they know who trump is. they've been exposed to him now very heavily. but i think when you get in the general election when the democrats are going to unload the research, it will be a different story. >> charles krauthammer, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> and on "media buzz," the latest on apple versus the fbi. are they getting sympathetic coverage refusing to help the fed in a terror case? first, how does a guy that keeps talking about a sex tape with his best friend's wife win $140 million against gawkers?

the jury in the hulk hogan sex tape case awarded 1$125 clr million damages after a verdict that imposed a $115 million penalty. gawker founder said his appeal will focus on key evidence that was excluded by the judge and still defends his decision to post the video. >> do you feel any remorse about posting that sex tape now? >> no. you know what? i don't. we didn't post the sex tape. we posted nine seconds of sexual

activity in an excerpt sort of much, much longer tape. >> hogan talked about the personal impact with fox's diana falzone. >> the judge and gawker tried numerous times to get you to settle on arbitration behind closed doors. why did you want this to go to trial? >> it still makes me cower. you know, i leave my house and meet my people, did they see the tape? what do the kids think? it wasn't about. that it was about this not ever happening to anybody else because i know how it affected me. so all i wanted was to let everyone know what gawker is all about and what they do to destroy the lives. >> joining us now from the new york is diana falzone, reporter for foxnews.com who covered this story. hulk hogan talked about this stap with howard stern and others says he was fighting against invasion of privacy. he also got a lot b. a zillion dollars. do you find he was doing there in the name of cleaning up journalism? >> i wasn't -- he wasn't doing it in the name of cleaning up

journalism. he is doing it in a way of cleaning up his reputation. he could have settled behind closed doors n fact, gawker and the judge were insisting on that for about 3 1/2 years but he and his lawyer said, no, we're going to vinld indicate hulk hogan's reputation. so this was more about him and then in the long run it was about defending people's privacy. he was saying he was his real name not hulk hogan in the private moments. >> yes. so the excluded evidence that gawker says could have turned the tide here involved allegation that's hogan's real motivation in filing this suit was to make sure that another tape didn't come out in which he had made racist comments. here's what he said to you in your ininterview this week. >> on top of, you know, the horrible decision i made morally at an all time low and with the low he would is me story that goes it with f i could make people understand, you know, that that one moment doesn't define me.

also, all those people that really don't know me i'm not a racist. your thoughts on that exchange? >> this man, when he came and sat down with me, he had bloodshot eyed. he looked like he was going throughout greatest match of his life. it's hard to know somebody's heart when it comes to racism and what their intent is. you can't really judge. that i will say this, this is very interesting. the hulk hogan camp, his lawyers, were able to exclude that racist rant from the trial. so that's what he is talking about when they say key evidence was left out. but hulk hogan's legal camp did not want the jury to be poisoned by hearing that rant. >> the awards are often knocked down on appeal. a lot of people are seeing this as a come uppance against gawker. but which over the year published a lot of mean spirit stuff about a lot of people's private lives. so do you think some people were rooting for hulk not because

he's such a sympathetic figure, a guy sleeping with his best friend's wife, but because he was taken on gawker? >> i think that definitely has something to do it with. the jury said that gawker was very air ganrizonir -- aarrogan. they make this okay by using the freedom of speech. but when is the line drawn? there is a code of ethics in journalism and they really like to walk that line very closely. >> i think this will have something of a chilling effect on the rest of the press, not worried that we're all in the business of posting sex tapes. but if you're reporting on a celebrity, online gossip in particular and you think a person might sue and you might get a jury that will award a big verdict, i think it could act as a deterrent. what do you think? >> considering that gawker is unapologetic, there will always be sites that have questionable moral integrity.

as long as there is social media and smart phones, i think we will see more cases like hulk hogan in the future. but perhaps the most will think before they type something up. i don't see much changing unfortunately. >> we'll see about that. i do think it will be a deterrent. perhaps i see it. great to see you. >> thank you, howard. after the break, a glowing time cover story on apple ceo tim cook for defying the fbi on hacking a terrorist iphone which turns out may not be necessary now.

you've seen the negative headlines. the fbi has been painting apple executives as the bad guys for refusing to create a technology

that could unlock the i-phone of one of the san bernardino terrorists. this week the justice department did an about-face saying a third party could hack into the phone without apple's help. joining us now is techiology executive and commentator. an cell starting to get better press in this battle. j is that? >> at the outset, apple made some statements on its website but since then they have embarked on a media campaign that is undress dented. >> apple is so secretive and doesn't talk to journalists much. >> and usual' not the ceo talking about it. they have scored points with the interviews and tim cook. meanwhile, we saw the fbi backtracking because the third party came forward with a potential solution this. week, apple is winning the media wattle about this issue. >> as wired magazine pointed out apple has been doing conference calls with journalists, inviting

backgrounds, and then there was a time magazine cover story on tim cook a. lot of quotesrom the apple ceo on this including such things as when i think of civil liberties i think of the founding fathe ining principles country. >> they gave him a lot of room to make his case. in one way, i can see how one reporter with unprecedented access gave him the opportunity. they started using his language throughout the course of the story and i felt it was biased. >> when you get a time cover story arc lot of it is framing it in your own direction. hackers wouldn't go to apple,

why is that? >> apple hasn't done much if anything to reward hackers for coming forward with these security flaws whereas other countries like google or microsoft -- google pays $100,000 to reward them for finding flaws. apple has been stubborn, dug their heels in and now they are going on the open market versus going to apple. >> isn't that buying off the hackers. i paing them off? is there anything unsavory? >> i think it does feel unsavory. but they are getting -- what they want is monetary reward for what they are fining and it's what they do for the living. they are getting up to a million dollars for the security flaws they find from apple in the open market. >> apple was portrayed as uncooperate with a federal investigation and unpay tree yotdic. it was a challenge to turn this around. >> but the way they engaged and

with the help of the hacker working with the fbi, it has turned this week. >> what about the fbi? in items of media portrayal. it said the only way they could do this with the terrorist's phone was from anal? >> now they are saying oh, maybe there is another way. they got criticized by the media for that one. still to come, a list of all the people and places that donald trump loves with one rather surprising name. >> i love the hispanics. i love the saudis. i love israel. i love the vaeng kls, i love the mormons.

larry sanders show featured an ego centric insecure thin

skinned oversexed host who had a cameo of a listers. it was a hall of fame of fake sincerity and nagging newer owesis of hollywood. >> i'm sweating like a big. >> you did great, man, what are you doing, come on, you are robin williams, for god's sake's. >> this is a ground breaking show in the '90s. and many are paying tribute to gary shandling now. donald trump is always proclaiming his love or this or that group, set of people or state or country. jimmy kimmel is on the case. the comedian rounded up examples. >> he spread so much love we boiled it down and pieced it to together to make a powerful donald trump love bomb. love the country. i love the country. i love the old days. i love free trade. i love my company. i love hopping around. i love the way they twist and

turn. i love nascar. i love to bring my people up. i love howy curtis. >> wait. what am i doing in there? oh, right, it was when he called on me at a trump tower news conference. trump generally thinks i'm fair to him. but believe me he tells me when he doesn't think i'm fair. i was waving my hand this week, and i could not get a question in. politics alas, love can be so fleeting. shana? >> it turns out i guess politicians are fickle when it comes to their loving of journalists. >> kind of like women can be fickle. >> i'm not going to touch that one. >> not going to touch that one. the promances and romances in politics and media rarely last. well, happy easter to you, and happy easter to all of you. i am a hurd curtis. like our facebook page? >> we post original content

there, your buzz videos, send me questions about the media. media buzz at fox deuce news.com. tune in and this is a fox news alert. a taliban faction claiming responsibility for a deadly suicide bombing in pakistan. and they say that christians celebrating easter were the targets. the bomb went off in a busy park in the city of lahore. busy with families celebrating the holiday. at least 63 people were killed. hundreds more injured. most of the victims are women and children. and we're told that the bomb detonated not far from several children's rides. the national security council issued a statement condemning the "cowardly attack" and saying that the united states stands with the people of