we'll see you next fox news sunday.

uni union. >> is today's vote an indicator today for your rhetoric and your extreme rhetoric is something you should -- >> i don't know -- i don't think i have extreme rhetoric actually. >> are the media mocking his golf course press conference? plus, a democratic sit-in over gun control causes pandemonium in the house and generates a wave of sympathetic coverage. >> we have to occupy the floor of the house until there's action. >> the chair would vote that the

business of the house would be conducted in a fashion that reflects positively on the dignity and the decorum of this institution to which we all belong. >> but don't partisans breaking views usually get bad press? i'm howard kurtz and this is "media buzz." it was a week that began with donald trump dumping his fiercely loyal campaign manager, corey lewandowski, then the federal filings showed trump raised just $3 million compared to $26 million for hillary clinton, and he had just over $1 million in the bank while she had $40 million. and the two nominees in waiting blistered each other in speeches, clinton unloading on trump's economic policy, trump on clinton's foreign policy. >> we can't let him bankrupt america like we are one of his failed casinos. we can't let him roll the dice

with our children's futures. >> hillary clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency of the united states. >> and the week ended with the british vote to exit the european union and trump becoming part of the narrative because he was fielding questions from reporters in scotland where he was reopening his golf course hours after the election results that stunned the world and forced the r resignation of britain's prime minister. >> david cameron said he didn't want to meet you? >> where is david cameron right now? >> the labor party. you're regarded as toxic. >> no, i think what happened is i think we have a nasty, nasty guy. >> joining us lisa booth, columnist for "the washington examiner" and a republican strategist, mara, a fox news contributor, and michael tomanski, columnist for the dale bileast. mara, trump has gotten a tsunami

of negative coverage. does that coverage go too far? >> you know, i think that donald trump would say that he has been able to counteract bad press in the media because he dominates social media, he's able to get his message out, and, yes, he's got a tremendous amount of bad press. some of it might go too far in terms of the kind of negative feeling overall towards trump in the media, but there are a lot of things that donald trump said himself that were another series of self-inflicted wounds. you didn't have to say something negative about donald trump. just report he went to scotland and said the dropping of a pound is a good thing for turnberry. or when asked did he discuss this with your foreign policy advisers, he said there's nothing to talk about. >> we'll come back to brexit, but on the financial front, nobody is saying having $1 million in the bank is good news. but did the media recognize trump may not need $1 billion? >> if you look at the numbers, i think hillary clinton spent something like $220 million to

take out bernie sanders with a staff of 700, and donald trump had less than 100. $50 million to defeat 16 candidates. that's not something they're talking about, but the numbers aren't good. i have worked for sflat candidates that have posted better numbers than that in a quarter and he's running a national campaign to be president. so i think the criticism regarding the fund-raising is fair. adding some of that extra context as far as how much hillary clinton has spent to try to defeat someone like bernie sanders would be helpful or at least make it a little bit more balanced. >> michael, trump says i may fund the whole campaign myself. what do you make of now really the fourth straight week of a lot of negative coverage? >> well, he got four months of really positive coverage. he got about four months of really -- >> really positive coverage during the primaries? you don't think it was mixed at least? >> it was mixed but what i'm referring to specifically is all the cable networks cutting to his speeches and covering his

speeches and tre empretempempti programming. if you converted all that time to bought commercial time, it was worth $2 billion. so he got a lot of free coverage. he did fine for himself. >> it wasn't all positive. >> it wasn't all positive but it was him standing there talking. he did fine for a while. now, here is the problem now. the press, number one, feels a little bit bad about all that. number two, they want him to prove that he can act like a president, you know, and then his coverage will turn around. >> before we move on, so you're saying, leaving aside the fact that a lot of that coverage was journalists covering him, you're saying the press felt they have been too soft and is now -- >> that's just my gut. >> all right. firing a campaign manager a month before the convention, not a great thing, but what did you make of the leaks that came out of a normally tight-lipped campaign where it's paul ma that fort now running the whole show.

ivanka distancing herself from the campaign unless lewandowski is out. >> it sounds like sometimes the trump campaign itself can be as undisciplined as the candidate. those were a lot of leaks. you had michael caputo, he tweeted ding dong the witch is dead. >> a staff volunteer who resigned hours later. >> a lot of leaks, made it sound like there was a lot of turmoil. there was something else that did get a little bit of coverage, after trump gave his blistering speech about hillary clinton, a comprehensive, cogent, whether it was based on conspiracy theories or facts, the point is he finally laid out the argument against hillary clinton. he raised a lot of money. he raised like $3 million, $4 million, $5 million in a couple days. >> maybe it didn't get as much coverage because the media likes insults rather than substance. al gore had three campaign managers. do you think the way it was portrayed as a catastrophe might have been a little overdone.

>> it happens all the time. particularly at the moment where you go from a primary campaign to a general campaign. that's often the time a campaign sheds staff because you're looking at a different campaign environment. you need someone who is more experienced, you know, running campaigns like paul manafort is. i think it makes sense from shift from corey to paul. i think the coverage of the firing sort of shows the bias in the media in itself. the amount of attention it good, especially at a time where you have a former hillary clinton staffer who pled the fifth over 150 times. new revelations regarding her e-mail server and private e-mails, but yet somehow donald trump firing a campaign manager, with i is standard operating procedure in campaigns, dominates the headlines. i think that in itself, the coverage that it got and the negative amount of attention it got, it just shows the bias in the media. >> one other little thing. corey lewandowski is a character in and of itself. he's generated a lot of controversy with the allegations he manhandled a reporter --

>> but i think that was overblown as well. >> it might have been but now where every controversy gets blown up, he was someone who people had a lot of interest in. >> controversies regarding him and not hillary clinton is the problem. >> you're just saying if it had been some sort of faceless campaign manager we might have moved on. let's move on to trump being in scotland, the brexit vote. he was there to promote his golf course. he did get into it with a couple reporters, including the one who said he might be toxic. by and large i would say there were negative reviews of trump on that golf course. fair or unfair? >> reasonable, i think. it was a really strangely timed trip. it's okay. he's still a businessman. he still owns golf courses. go promote your golf course but the day of that vote? it seemed really silly to me and really just incomprehensible. maybe it was intentional but if it was, he could have at least done his hokework mework of know

at least scotland voted. >> when presidential candidates go abroad, they have meetings with local leaders. he didn't have any of that. he had turnberry. >> but he did brexit was another vindication for him. he fund raised off it. there's no doubt he pushed the narrative there were parallels between brexit and the u.s. campaign. >> he wasn't the only one pushing it. do you think there's a bit of an overreach? it's a tempting story to draw a parallel between what happened in britain, and trump was pro-brexit, and his own campaign which has surprised so many people here and whose supporters have often been attacked as being idiotic as the pro-brexit people, some of them, were. >> you don't want to overplay the hand at all, and typically in the media, we see things

oversensationalized. there are some parallels in the sense you have faceless bureaucrats in brussels dictating everything from toasters to tea kettles and people in the united states feeling there's been a heavy hand of federal overreach going into their everyday lives. some of those parallels are similar, that anti-establishment sentiment, frustration with open borders, this feeling that, you know, their country has gotten further away from, you know, who they felt that they should be as a nation. >> you think it's perfectly appropriate for the press to point out what you see as strong parallels? >> i think there's some parallels. does that mean anything for the november -- for the general election? probably not. who knows. but i think some of the parallels that were being drawn, that's fair. >> but, you know, for every one of those stories, i read another one that said, wait a second, there's a lot of differences and it might not be direct. i think the press coverage was pretty nuanced. >> well, our fox news colleague

george will made a little news. saying he's leaving the republican party. let's take a look. >> i left it for the same reason i joined it in 1964 when i voted for barry goldwater. i joined it because i was a conservative. i leave for the same reason, that i'm a conservative. >> is this important in the sense of being symbolic since george will has been a very, very high-profile conservative commentator for decades? >> i think it is. what percentage of americans know george will? i don't say that to demean him? >> he was on abc for decades. >> so maybe a lot of people know the guy and i think he's very well respected among republicans and conservatives. so i think once he says that, i think others say it too. >> and will made no secret of the fact he's doing this because of donald trump. he's telling the republican party make sure trump loses, don't give him money. not saying that armies of people are going to follow him, but it grabs your attention. >> shows you how disunified

republican party is. if you read charles krat hammer or michael gerson, pretty sem lar sentiments and it just shows you trump aent unified the party. >> at rael donald trump saying on twitter, george will one of the most overrated political pundits who lost his way long ago. so punching back. >> did anyone think he wasn't going to? but it certainly plays into this narrative of disunity in the republican party which there obviously is some. that's undeniable and certainly when you have someone high profile like george will, conservative that is a lot of republicans respect, that does not send the right message and it does end up hurting donald trump. >> there is a real split in the gop and in the conservative media which we talk about here a lot. george will an example of that. we'll see new a bit. when we come back, katrina pierson responds to all this for the trump campaign. and later why did the house democratic sit-in on gun control get such glowing coverage?

donald trump drawing mostly negative coverage again this week. joining us from dallas to respond is katrina pierson, a spokeswoman for the campaign. trump says he's been brutalized by the coverage. he used that word, but surely you'd agree firing a campaign manager and raising only $3 million in the month of may is fair game for media scrutiny? >> well, it would be fair game for scrutiny if they were reporting it in its accurate context. i mean, with regards to corey lewandowski, mr. trump himself said that he just wanted to go a different direction. this was a business decision, not a political one. they both gave interviews speaking highly of each other and corey lewandowski is still promoting mr. trump to this day but the media insisted there had

to be a villain involved. >> i see. we looked at the fact checking of both hillary clinton's big speech this week and donald trump's speech this week. we found more media efforts to scrutinize what trump had said, and he in particular seems to take issue with cnn's fact checking efforts. he tweeted that the clinton news network as he called it is losing all credibility. do you think cnn and the other news media organizes have been fair in their fact-checking efforts? >> absolutely not, particularly last week after mr. trump's speech. the anchors and the reporters at cnn didn't even wait for their official, quote, unquote, fact checker before they proceeded to defend hillary clinton after mr. trump's speech, and they went as far as to try to explain away some of the criticisms that mr. trump gave. questions that they won't even ask her themselves. >> what do you think explains this if you see that as tilting to one side as you clearly do? >> well, i think what needs to

happen is mr. trump has already stated that he's going to have to continue to bypass the media to take his message to the public. and these cnn fact checkers, i mean, i thought last week was pretty beside themselves when they actually went to hillary clinton's defense. even a commentator wanted to discredit "clinton cash," the book. that stuff needs to be out there and the public needs to know. >> you say trump may have to in many ways bypass the media, but he's still doing a lot of interviews both with newspapers and television, so he is continuing what he did in the primaries which is also to engage the media. you're not suggesting that is going to change, are you? >> absolutely not. he's going to continue to talk to the media because at least if he is talking to the media, they can't say he said something he didn't say. even though they'll try to twist it and do what they do best which is create their own narrative. mr. trump is going to continue to make himself available to the media and the public because at

the end of the day mr. trump's policy versus hillary clinton's policies will make all the difference in the lives of americans. >> the press largely i think criticized mr. trump for making the trip to scotland for the golf course and then after the brexit vote saying that a sinking british pound when asked about that would help his turnberry golf course. the criticism there was he was making it all about him. your response? >> well, it wasn't really about him. it was about scotland in general, and he said that. there's going to be a lot of business that goes there, which i think is really important. mr. trump's response was the response of a successful businessman. he was very supportive of brexit simply because the people should get to decide their future, and that's exactly what happened in the uk. it's going to happen all over the world, and it's going to happen in the united states. we too have our own burdening elites trying to tell americans how to live their daily lives. what they can and can't eat, how

much money they can make. mr. trump was stating a fact, and that is scotland will see more business. >> all right. let me read you a couple of newspaper leads. "washington post," these are about the upcoming cleveland convention. dozens of republican convention delegates are hatching a new plan to block donald trump's, the most organized effort so far to stop campaign. moving quickly and aggressively to head off a fledgling herd to stage a revolt. our john roberts asked donald trump about this in scotland yesterday. let's take a look. >> there is a real campaign now among certain number of delegates to the convention to unbind delegates to try to stop you from becoming the nominee at the convention. what do you say about what's going on? >> it's all made up by the press. >> no, it's not. >> they can't do it legally. >> these efforts i think probably have only a minuscule chance of getting anywhere but it's not all made up by the press as i read to you. people are on the record talking about organizing against trump

in cleveland. >> well, yes. there are a handful of people who are educated adults that want to take their ball and go home because their guy didn't win. at the end of the day, it's a very small number. mr. trump has the delegates to win. it's going to be an amazing convention. mr. trump has brought in the most votes in a gop primary ever, and he has brought in more than people to the party. this is what the party has been saying they've needed. it is exactly why the rnc is supporting mr. trump, why they're doing joint efforts now, because he wants to help down ballot races, and mr. trump is going to take his message to the convention and show why hillary clinton's policies would be abysmal for the economy and for national security. >> we'll see new cleveland, katrina. thanks for being here. >> thanks, howard. we'll look at the fact checking of those big speeches. did both candidates get equal scrutiny? but up next, how many british papers helped the

divorce from the european union?

media outlets around the world seem surprised by britain's vote to abandon the european union even though the polls had been very tight. >> make no mistake, this is the biggest political shock in britain in half a century. every political party here, big business, trade unions wanted britain to stay, the people decided otherwise. >> well, it would be hard to overestimate both the shock and the consequences of this vote. >> stunning as well because yesterday people thought that the remain vote was going to win because there was a ugov poll out that showed the opposite of what happened. >> stunning, shocking. it was rather like many journalists remained in denial about donald trump who supported brexit and his chances of winning the republican

nomination. but many british papers, especially the tabloids, anti-european drum beats have been growing louder. vote leave today begged the daily express. the daily mail pushed the leave campaign's line with nailed, four big eu lice. the daily mirror one of the few against leaving you're. don't take a leap into the dark. vote remain today. former times of london editor martin fletcher righting in "the new york times" said in these partisan anti-europe papers editors only wanted reports about faceless eurocrats dictating the shape of cucumbers that could be sold in britain or plots to impose a european super state or british prime ministers fighting plucky rather-guard actions against hostile continent. the daily mail, ten bombshells thee u is keeping secret until after you voted. but the bbc was largely the

voice of the london elite which favored the remain and came under fire for trying to preserve the marriage with the eu. >> i watch bbc. i have never seen so much propaganda for an issue be rebuffed by popular will than i saw here. the bbc was an endless reel of pro-remain. >> some british journalists denigrated the leave supporters as immigrant-hating ya hohooyah. fusion's felix salmon writing, after the vote, make no mistake, this was a racist campaign. it did happen in the united kingdom and journalists who were shocked need to examine why they thought it was unthinkable. ahead on "media buzz" cnn hires corey lewandowski immediately after his firing by the trump campaign. really? but first a media fact checking donald trump's big speech.

hillary clinton's not so much.

after hillary clinton and donald trump gave major speeches attacking each other this week, the media were filled with fact checking pieces and analyses, mostly about trump. some of these questions came up in an interview with nbc's lester holt. >> there's no evidence -- >> it happened all during the day and going on for a long period of time. >> i guess what i'm asking -- >> excuse me. it was going on for a long period of time, and she was asleep at the wheel whether she was sleeping or not. who knows if she was sleeping. >> but is there any evidence it was hacked? >> i read that and i heard it -- >> where? >> and somebody gave me that information. i'll report back to you. >> just to clarify, the first question was about trump saying hillary clinton had been asleep during the benghazi attack. of course, was about whether there had been russian hacking or other hacking

of here e-mail server. mara, what do you think of those exchanges and do you think trump gets fact checked more aggressively. >> there's no doubt trump gets fact checked more aggressively. he says a lot of things that aren't backed up by evidence, and the fact checking departments are actually overwhelmed, and she tends to deliver her attacks by repeating outrageous things that he has said. those are easy. you don't have to fact check those. those are just things that he says. but, yes, he's under more scrutiny. that's a pretty classic example. he said her e-mail server was hacked. pretty simple question, what's your evidence? he didn't have it. he said i'll come back to you. >> some outlooks like "the washington post" fact checked both. the new york tim"the new york t checked trump. cnn did a sizable on air fact check about trump. a few sentences on hillary. >> the organizations doing the fact check are only as impartial as the individuals doing the

fact checking themselves. d organizations like politifact were three times more likely to find republican statements and claims false than they were for democrats. i know someone who worked on republican campaigns. you get to a point where you stop responding to politifact because even though the information you're giving them is true, the best you're going to get is a half true. and your democratic counterpart, they're rating everything true. not very often are they rated anything false. you certainly see a lot of bias with those organizations. >> it's fair to attack the fact checkers but when you have no fact check on a major hillary clinton speech, it's harder for me to defend. >> there should be fact checking. i think everybody should be fact checked. this thing i guess cnn first started to do about the realtime fact checking along the bottom of the screen when trump spoke, i think that's a great idea. >> i do too. >> they should do it for

everybody, but let me just say trump deserves a trump ee ee ee tougher fact check because he says stuff that pops in his head. in this speech when he said, for example, that hillary clinton -- all the turmoil in the middle east is directly her responsibility. it's that kind of sentence that just makes people go what are you saying? >> we have someone like hillary clinton, never in history has a major party nominee been facing a federal investigation by the fbi. >> don't go there. go to fact checking. >> i'm going to get to that. given the amount of lies that she has told in relation to the private e-mail server -- >> that hasn't been extensively covered by the press. >> not to the extent of donald trump's comments? donald trump says silly things that deserve fact checking but we're talking about real credible issues that have to deem with national security, and those things get priority. >> here is where republicans that i've talked to are incredibly frustrated. there is a case to be made

against hillary clinton. she sass sahas said things abou server, i asked, it's okay, other people did it, that have turned out to be contradicted. he didn't put that in his speech. he goes for the wild conspiracy theories. he doesn't lay out the argument -- >> i'm sure you're not saying it's all wild conspiracy -- >> not all of it. >> hillary clinton gave trump's old position on minimum wage and then gave her new position on toucher tra tougher trade deals. before we go, bernie sanders still running for the democratic nomination last i checked. take a look. >> if you realize she's likely to become the nominee, why not withdraw in tfrom the race? >> why would i want to do that when i want to fight to make sure we have the best platform we absolutely can? >> should the press stop covering bernie sanders so

heavily? >> i think they have. >> it's a faint acome pli. >> and because it's done. >> obviously he's going to want to do his thing up to the convention so it's news. he's news. he got 12 million votes. >> just briefly i don't think he wants to give up the spotlight. this is not a senator who got a lot of media attention before he ran for president. >> no. i mean, he's loving this. the amount of money he's been able to raise. this is someone who has been a back bencher in congress for decades and how he has a platform and he has a platform at the democratic committee because we know he has five people to hillary clinton's six on the party platform committee. >> philadelphia is going to be as interesting as cleveland, mark my words. mara, lisa, michael, thank you for stopping by this sunday. coming up, house democrats take over the floor in what the gop at least calls a publicity stunt. and later why the media scoffed at donald trump jetting scoffed at donald trump jetting off to his

you won't see these folks at the post office. scoffed at donald trump jetting off to his they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

once the initial shock of the orlando massacre began to wear off the media's attention began to focus on gun control. the coverage mushroomed as the senate voted down four begun me gun measures and exploded when democrats took over the house floor. ♪

>> i am talking about -- >> radical islam killed these poor people. >> sitting down to take a stand. house democrats hold a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control. >> the time for patience is long gone. >> an unprecedented demonstration. dozens of democrats today calling for a vote on gun control. >> an extraordinary scene, peter. >> the dramatic and unprecedented nature of this tactic makes this the biggest domestic policy story in the country by a mile. >> did the democrats get a whole lot of positive press for what paul ryan called a publicity stunt? i sat down with susan and simon. welcome. this was a media coup. has the press played up the drama, and you were there.

there was much emphasis on the democrats in breaking rules? >> almost none. i was in the scrum of reporters asking questions. nobody said you're breaking rules. is this how it's going to be in the future? i asked the question and i got a lecture from the minority leader of the house wagging his finger at me saying this is a really important issue and it justifies our action. >> get with the program. simon, you have to admit the media bought into the whole civil rights analogy, sit-in, john lewis, we shall overcome. basically it was a minority party insisting on a vote. >> yeah. i think paul ryan blew it by turning off the cameras because it created conflict. it allowed the whole thing to escalate and the democrats caught the wave by using this alternative technology, the periscope and facebooking and all of a sudden it became interesting and the truth is no one has heard from the house democrats in years, right? so this was the first time in sort of the fair and balanced nature of our town sometimes that gave the democrats 24 hours

to do their thing. >> the importance of twitter's periscope is not in session, c span can't have the cameras on. this was very popular on c span. so how much of the coverage in your view was influenced by the fact the subject was gun control which the media cares a lot about? >> that's true, and everyone felt it was sort of justified because there's been no gun control action. you look at the polls, lots of people say we want gun control. we want to stop terrorists from buying guns, but nobody is polled on the specific ideas offered by democrats versus republicans. both sides have offered ideas. what was missing in the media coverage are the idea that the republicans have put forward that the democrats have blocked. there's no discussion about that. it's just all about, geez, there's been no action on gun control. this may be the only way to get to it. >> you know msnbc was almost wall to wall. "the huffington post" had this banner headline, dems give them bloody hell.

when paul ryan called it a publicity stunt, it was almost sort of covered as an obligatory, and on the other hand the gop says the dems are just doing this for show. >> again, the amazing thing to me is the democrats stopped. they showed a remarkable discipline because i think they had a really good 24 hours. if they had pushed it any further, i think the news coverage would have turned very negative on them. >> but let me push you a little further. did they have a really good 24 hours because basically most of the press was buying into their narrative rather than viewing this as a stunt. by the way, both parties do stunts. the republicans have done things -- >> the republicans shut the government down, shut dhs down. >> that wasn't a stunt but a fill buster is a stunt that's allowed by the rules, by the way. i know you were pleased. but were you surprised that the democrats in the house were getting such good press over this action that wasn't going to lead to anything? >> again, i think it had to do with in some ways it was s serendipito serendipitous.

it was not going to get any coverage and then they found alternative ways of getting their message out. >> do you think if it had not been for the live streaming on periscope the story would have been a yawn? >> yes, i do. >> why? >> because it was interesting. you know, all of a sudden you had c-span covering things through periscope on the floor. they had never done that before. it became the manipulation of this new media itself became the story past the original sit down. and so i think, again, democrats are not always the most disciplined crew. i think the fact this they called it off allowed them to -- >> so when republicans refuse to have a vote on merrick garland, they were portraying the press as obstructionist. the democrats didn't get tagged with the label even though they were stopping the house from doing business. >> it was all framed in a very favorable light. i have some headlines here from back when ted cruz was filibustering. this was phony obamacare filibuster. that's a headline -- >> that's a news story. >> then we have ted cruz finally releases his grip on the senate

floor. i >> i'm all for any political party trying to seize the moment, get the coverage, be in front of the cameras, but if the democrats had gotten a vote, they would have lost and the story would have been over a lot sooner. thanks for joining us. let us know what you think. mediabus@foxnews.com. after the break, trump tends to his revamped golf course in scotland and the press sees a double bogey. more on that next.

donald trump may have been in scotland just as the stunning brexit results came in but at first we wanted to talk about the reason for his trip, promoting the opening of his turnberry golf course. >> we've made certain changes to the course, and in addition to

that we fully renovated the course. brand new sprinkler system, the highest level. many of the holes have been jiggered and made even longer and new greens, new everything . >> joining knee now from new york is a reporter for real clear politics. great to see you. >> hi, good to be with you. >> so donald trump was -- made some brief comments about brexit and then to the frustration of the networks, some of which caught away he launched into an disposition of the glories of the golf course. "washington post" said it was a surreal ribbon cutting and trump did not seem to understand the gravity of the uk decision. is that sort of coverage unfair? >> it's interesting, because when trump touched down into scotland he praised the vote and as we know, of course, scotland is one of the few places that voted overwhelmingly against leaving the eu, so there was some criticism to be had there, and trump also before addressing the eu vote launched into a real

promotion of the renovations made to the golf resort he was at. >> good sprinkler system. >> which was the reason for his trip. right, exactly, but the best in the world, right? so he started off by that and then launched into his take on the vote. and it is -- should be noted that trump was opposed to the uk remaining in the eu. he had said that before in interviews, but this is also a case of, you know, he was in the right place at the right time, and it wasn't a foreign policy expedition that presidential candidates traditionally take. >> so was he lucky in a way because here he suddenly live news coverage on cable news about this momentous decision by the u ku because initially the reporting was all like what is donald trump doing taking days off the campaign trail to go to scotland for a golf course promotion? >> right. there was a lot of discussion about whether he should be going, and there was discussion

within the campaign and critics were wondering whether this was the right choice to be making at this time, and trump went ahead with it anyway. and so his supporters said, look, he's in the heat of the biggest political story of the moment, and so from his supporters' perspective and eventually from the campaign's perspective it was the right decision. but it did invite a lot of criticism. >> right. >> first, you know, it wasn't a foreign policy expedition. he said that he was talking with his foreign policy advisers while he was over there and also said there was really nothing to talk about. >> he didn't advertise it as being a foreign policy trip. in this hyper speed universe we live in the fact he was there in scotland holding ground on brexit does this push aside or wipe away the previous coverage of the firing of his campaign manager and the trouble with fund-raising? >> i think that will continue because we're still waiting to

see what the fallout from that is. we're getting a wave of new polls today by a variety of different sources. the campaign, you know, changes day to day. we'll see if the firing and this kind of new trump that the campaign has been promoting, he gave a speech last week criticizing clinton. we'll see what his campaign schedule is, whether he'll campaign in battleground states. he'll have to raise money, has already shown that he's starting to raise money online which is something that they didn't do. so changes are being made and i think that will all help inform this context. >> the new polls show hillary with a 12-point lead or five-point lead depending on whether you're looking at the "washington post" or nbc/"wall street journal." a published rumor about clarence thomas gets shot down big time and what do we make of cnn's new contributor, cory lewandowski?

it was little more than a rumor story, "washington

examiner" columnist paul bedard reporting clarence thomas is, quote, mulling retirement after the election according to court watchers. his wife guinea thomas knocked that down on facebook saying unsubscribed with the news sources and carry on with your busy lives. paul bedard needs to find a phone in his life and unnamed sources are worth as much as their transparentsy is. he did cover the denial but whatever happened to a phone call for phone comment? cnn has hired corey lewandowski and this is a sad move and lewandowski has made clear he doesn't plan to utter a negative syllable about his ex-boss. here's his cnn interview before he was hired. >> someone tuning in to watch this might be thinking that they are on another planet because you're making it seem like everything was really great. >> the campaign is moving in the right direction. that's the most important thing. >> and here is lewandowski's

first interview once on the cnn payroll with erin burnett who asked about his firing. >> do you feel angry? >> i don't. i feel honored. i feel honored to have been part of changing the american political system for the rest of our lives and hopefully so much further. >> lewandowski insists he'll calls balls and strikes as he sees them and even if he wants to criticism trump he can't because he signed a non-disclosure agreement as burnett pointed out promising not to demean or disparage trump. lots of former operatives work for cable news channels and even leaving aside lewandowski's treatment of some reporter i don't see how this lends credibility to cover donald trump. that's it for this edition of "media buzz." i'm howard kurtz. post to our facebook page. write to us

mediabud@foxnews.com. we'll look for you online and continue the conversation and we're back here next sunday same time same place at 11:00 and 5:00 eastern with the latest buzz. it is monday, june 27, and this is a fox news alert. brexit backlash. financial markets across the world opening in a tail spin as investors in the u.s. get ready to see what is in store are to them here at home. what you need to know before the opening bell. and also, we'll take you to the political arena where the race for the white house is on. it's donald trump versus hillary clinton. what will happen next? we'll tell you. and a fireball in the sky, terrifying moments a plane packed full of people burst into flames making an emergency landing.