three, two, one. >> merry christmas! welcome to the special christmas edition of "media buzz" i'm hu ard kurtz. merry christmas to all of you and happy hanukkah which is also under way. thanks for sharing your holiday with us. ed will scrutinize the coverage of the clinton's new blame game. did hillary really lose because of vladimir putin or angry white men? president obama's latest shot at fox. and facebook's controversial new plan to crack down on fake news. but we begin with the aftermath of a story that was sadly hyped by the media. the electoral was somehow in a last gasp vote deny donald trump the presidency? >> members of the electoral college will meet the country

today, to validate the results of the presidential election. typically it's a ceremonial event. this time around, though, it comes with an unusual amount of attention and even controversy. >> 538 members of the electoral college will vote today in their state capitals. it's a formality required by the constitution. but there will be protests this year and some electors are urging others not to vote for donald trump. >> it seems that people are still holding out hope that the electoral college, when they vote tomorrow, will somehow miraculously decide that hillary clinton is the winner. >> then came the actual voting. and it was a nothing. >> what we've known for weeks was made official this evening, as members of the electoral college cast their ballots in all 50 states and the district of columbia. >> it's official, the electors across this country putting donald trump over the 270 electoral votes he needs to become the president in january. it did not come without some fiery moments today. >> joining us now to analyze the

coverage of the trump transition, erin mcpike political commentator and former reporter for realclear politics. molly hemingway senior editor at the federalist. and michael tamassy columnist for the daily beast. he tweeted we did it. thank you for all of my great supporters. we just officially won the election. parentheses despite all the distorted and inaccurate media. so -- >> it has worked for him so far. but in the sense of coverage of the story, some of it, it has been a shocking year with all kinds of surprises, so we had to cover it some. >> some? but maybe too much. i want to come back to the coverage but i want on this tweet now. trump's advisers believe, and he believes, that he is battling back, still, this post election period against coverage that is consistently negative. >> well, the media have far worse approval ratings than even donald trump does. we always talk about donald

trump's bad approval ratings. media have far worse. and this is a great example of why. i mean, they hyped that hillary was going to win the election. she didn't. they hyped the recount efforts. that went nowhere. they hyped this electoral college story in a way that was very bizarre, and it didn't work out well for them. i mean hillary clinton ended up losing more electors than donald trump did. it reminds me of that character on the simpson's side show bob who is always stepping on rakes. that's what the media seem like. whichever direction they turn they just keep stepping on rakes. >> a cartoon character. but the debate here with trump continuing to bash the president, and journalists by name, you know, should he be more gracious? and unifying? or is it better for him to be riling up his base and keeping them. >> yes he should be more gracious and unifying. but yes it's better for him politically to rile up his base. in a normal world, they would not be very mutually exclusive.

no, he knows that the people who voted for him, and the hard-core trump supporters whenever he sends out a tweet that says the media did this and its outrageous, they're going to believe him no matter what the actual objective truth of the matter is. so that the way to keep people on his side is to keep people worked up. >> right. >> to a grand total of two electors going rogue against trump and four against hillary, yes, of course it has to be covered. but sort of interesting. should we now admit that this was blown out of proportion by the media, perhaps, wishing that maybe this was actually happen? >> well, it wasn't covered appropriately. as you may remember, politico had a pretty lengthy story on how a number of these electors were lobbied. they got phone calls. they were badgered. they were harassed. they got e-mails. there were some death threats. but as far as i'm concerned, only politico did that story, and then everyone else talked about it. that's an important story that should have been done more

broadly. >> but not just about news coverage. you had columnists, you know, who've been around a long time like kathleen parker actually encouraging this, and erectors should go rogue, which you know, if this had been a serious thing, which it was not, would essentially overturn the results of the election. >> right. and it fits into that pattern of the media trying to affect a particular change rather than just report on a given issue. and it's not healthy. >> but the end game -- >> whoa -- >> talk further about the electoral college. and whether we still need the troll college. and that coverage is going to die going forward. we should actually talk about that again, before the next election. >> some media are entitled to try and encourage an outcome. they're called columnists. they're allowed to have their point of view. and they're allowed to say, purposely allowed to say what he wants to say about the electoral college. number one. number two to pick up on erin's point to the extent that we had and i think to some extent we did have a serious conversation about what the electoral college is, why it came into existence

in the first place, and why it should still exist, that was a useful conversation. >> that is a good debate. but we would be talking about whether the electoral college should be abolished in the future, as opposed to sort of changing the rules in the middle of the game. >> right. which is why the lack of forward-going conversation is why this is trying a last-ditch attempt to unseat donald trump. >> there was some news the other day because there's been a lot of focus not just on donald trump's own potential business conflicts, his worldwide empire of real estate, and so forth but those of his kids, who obviously will play some role in his administration. eric trump announcing that he's no longer going to solicit money for his charity, this came after kind of a drum beat of news stories about all three of the adult kids. having essentially opened the door to potential conflicts in the view of the stories for example eric trump foundation

was going to auction off coffee with ivanka trump and invitation drafted without his knowledge, trump and don jr., to award a hunting trip with one of the two sons, if you gave a half million dollars or a million dollars. so, eric trump telling "the new york times" as unfortunate as it is i understand the quagmire. you do a good thing that backfires. were these stories that raised these questions actually raising legitimate questions? that caused maybe -- >> i don't know if it's apositi back on charity. but it's just a fact of life that the trump family and all of people associated with them do have tremendous conflict of interest and this is something the media really should pay attention to. paying attention to it in a good faith effort understanding that it's a complicated issue for everybody to deal with it's not just the family, it's going to be all the properties, all the businesses. there's so many ways that different corporations and foreign governments and other people can work with trump family, or their business ties

to affect their interests. the media really do need to be on top of this. being on top of it in a calm, racial way. >> -- the family hadn't totally grappled with winning the presidency would mean and kind of facing reality that in the effort to raise money for fighting cancers, which is one of the main things eric trump's foundation does, could be viewed as opening the door to influence. >> i think the president plays a part in the role here. we're in an unprecedented situation with all these family ties and business ties that molly just discussed, and it's going to be an ongoing story. there's no way that this is going away. and part of it was exacerbated, i believe, by trump canceling that press conference on december 15th that he had scheduled where he said he was going to address these questions and the questions remain unaddressed. >> some of the same questions came up about the clinton foundation. you've got to ask the question, at the same time, it can't be over the top. ask the questions and see what the family decides to do.

here's a big scale. donald trump spent 30 minutes talking to a group of reporters at mar-a-lago off the record. and they posed for a photo, and everyone was smiling just like when you get your picture taken with the president, and a lot of people were horrified. >> well, you do want to have off-the-record meetings with sources, and the president if you can. the issue i had with this in particular, it's not a big deal, you don't need to show a photo of it. >> what's the big deal? >> because then you know exactly who is having an off-the-record meeting. >> well -- the existence of the meeting wasn't secret. the contents of the conversation was. >> sure but you know exactly which reporters then have access off the record to donald trump and which reporters don't. >> well it happened to be the group of reporters, and commentators who were there in mar-a-lago. and here's the thing. look, would be it be better if all interactions were on the record and you could share it with the world? i understand the debate but if

you have a chance, some insight into the thinking of a president-elect, or a sitting president and the ground rules are off the record i don't think it's some great betrayal. i don't think taking a photo is that big deal. but the reactions. embarrassing, you should be ashamed. >> i'm not a big fan of off-the-record discussions. i think they really serve to benefit the politicians, maybe far less the public interests. but to kind of hold donald trump accountable for his presidency is really much more when he becomes president. this is exactly the time when you want to have an off-the-record conversation. you need a thaw in relations between the media and the press. there's just been so much. there's a perception in the people that there's been an unnecessary hostility towards trump. if they can smooth some things over so that they can do a better job covering him, i'm all for it. >> every president does it, barack obama, they always do it on the day of the state of the union, and yes, donald trump should hold a press conference. i wish he had not gone so long but i just don't understand the shock, it's almost as if, i think because it's trump, in

some way -- >> i don't think anybody who's really like in the know was really shocked by this. >> right. >> i mean you know i've been part of these off-the-record conversations. i think everybody has. the only part i object to is the smarmy picture. it shouldn't have happened. >> i'm not quoted on this. i didn't make the a-list. all right kel onconway was named white house counselor this week. she had a lot of hesitation about joining the plrgs. we talked about it on our show last week with her because she's got four kids age 7 to 12, and could she balance it? so this question came up as she went on a whole bunch of morning shows, when the new appointment was announced. here's what kellyanne had to say. >> we were talking with ron williams, questioning kelly has four kids, how's she going to do it. she got creamed on twitter. >> i would just say to everyone, not ron because i don't want him to be creamed, i would say i don't play golf and i don't have a mistress so i have a lot of

time that these other men don't. >> she's a really good communicator, who is going to be i think the public face of the trump white house. all agreed? good joke? bad joke? >> i think it is interesting that women tend to get asked questions about how they're going to balance their work life and i'm all for those questions, they're very important and i wish more people would think about this. i actually just wish that men would also get asked those questions because it's important for men -- >> right. fair enough. let us know what you think. e-mail us, media buzz@fox news.com. questions and comments about the media. ahead did the press buy into the clinton blame game about why hillary lost the election? up next facebook has designed a plan to combat fake news working with the mainstream media, and some critics aren't giving it a like.

facebook is finally trying to end its tied of fake news and not everyone is happy about that. it's teaming up with fact checking operations including abc news, politifact and factcheck.org to confirm stories that are out and out fake. stories will be easier for reerd to flag, and they'll be labeled false and buried in users' news feeds. mark zuckerberg's company saying we've focused our efforts on the worst of the worst. the narrative is being pushed by progressives to explain how hillary clinton could possibly have lost an election to donald trump. i have to partially disagree. there is absolute made up b.s. on both sides and it does have real consequences as we saw the d.c. pizzeria, invaded by armed gunman who believed online story

about a child sex trade headed by hillary. >> there's nothing but about fake news. it's been with us since the world began. whether it's the weekly world news or what you can get an facebook. this is a desperate attempt to not deal with the reality that the media doesn't do a very good job covering the news this year. you can hunt down literally every corner of the internet trying to find any possible evidence of fake news. or you can just do a better job doing your own job and that's why if the media would focus on rather than cinching for enemies, real or imagined. >> is the narrative being pushed by progressives? >> oh, no. i mean, look, we have to be able to agree on a few things in this world. there's not that much left and right agree on in this country but we have to be able to agree, i would hope that if somebody is sitting at home and intentionally put some stories out that they know to be false, like that pizzagate thing, that we have to collectively do something, make some effort to try and stop that from happening. >> okay, so for instance rolling stone putting out a story they knew was false on a gang rape at

university of virginia -- >> they didn't no -- >> that was a horrifying -- >> there were journalistic failures every step of the way and instead of condemning rolling stone we have media figures praising it, president obama saying it's a great example of a publication. that's a much bigger problem. >> who praised that story? >> initially everybody praised the story until it was revealed -- >> total hoax. journalistic failure. and that's what we should be focused on. our failures. our inability to report back instead of pushing narratives -- >> i'm trying to make a distinction here between all kinds of failures by the mainstream media, bad information, and the people who sit in their living rooms and deliberately make stuff up like the pope endorsed donald trump. >> yeah, look -- >> in order to make some money. >> fake news may have been around since the beginning of time but the internet has not been. and facebook is a huge source of news for billions of people on the planet. i mean, this is a really important story, and facebook

has been talking about how they're in a news distribution business, content gathering business, you walk around the city and you will see advertisements to go live on any bus that you have, any bus stop. it's a problem. and facebook really needs to take responsibility and they're shirking it because in this statement they say we believe in giving people a voice and we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves. it is weak. they need -- >> so you believe that facebook should hire editors and do it -- >> think about how their content and distribution -- >> then facebook would be accused of bias and censorship any time it makes a disputed call. >> tough. that comes with responsibility. when you're giving news to that many people. >> you see for example politifact as partisan and unreliable. and here is "the washington post" fact checker, factcheck own organize none of these organizations is not perfect but don't they at least try to use facts to debunk things that are not true? >> the entire fact checking

enterprise has serious credibility problems. politifact is a great example. not just because they are so partisan as they've shown through what they covered but they don't necessarily cover facts. facebook says they're just going to be looking for the worst of the worse. but politifact has such mission creep. they check opinions, predictions, analysis. and that's subjective. and people who don't know the difference between objective truth and subjective analysis should not be in the business of determining what is or is not -- >> by the way, some of these people who are upset, nobody is deleting these posts, essentially tagging them to let people know, although in a few polls, americans say they're confident they can detect fake news. this is something journalists are more concerned about than the average person. >> i don't think 84% of people can defect fake news. >> what irn said is it, facebook is a news delivery system and they have to own up to it. >> what about when fake news starts to blend with --

>> censorship is also a serious problem and i think it's interesting. media thought facebook plan was a great plan. that should concern us. that instinct is exactly the opposite -- >> do you see censorship even if it just means a story is demoted in the news feed because there's some kind of consensus that it's fake? >> i think it's missing the entire problem which is we need to do a better job with our coverage rather than looking elsewhere for problems. the more we try and control things the more people are going to distrust us. it's going to make the problem worse. >> we need to do a better job with our coverage. let's all agree on that. great to see you. and ahead the "newsweek" reporter who had a meltdown on twitter and a health scare. we'll talk with tucker carlson. but what are samantha bee and glenn beck doing doze ziing up to each other?

in the holiday spirit we bring you a story of reconciliation. or at least a brief bit of shtick for a ratings pop. samantha bee who hosts full frontal on tbs invited glenn beck, conservativive crusader, one-time fox host who runs the blaze to sit down and find common ground. >> my audience is going to think that i am crazy for sitting down with you. >> my audience hates your guts.

>> my audience hates your guts more. >> my audience would like to stab you relentlessly in the eyes. >> my audience wants to kill me for normalizing a lunatic like yourself. >> really? >> yes. >> so far this is going great. >> great, indeed. now it turns out the key attraction for these strange bed fellows is both of them don't like donald trump. so that kind of ruins the christmasy narrative. at least when sam tells glenn they should join in a broad coalition of nonpartisan decency. but then came this fascinating concession from beck. >> i believe you actually don't want to do damage. i -- as a guy who has done damage, i don't want to do any more damage. i know what i did. i helped divide. i'm willing to take that. >> and yes, they wound up reaching out and holding hands.

a little too long. now, maybe they'll go back to saying politically inflammatory things for fun and profit but there's a serious point here in a business increasingly built on polarization. maybe folks in the opinion business could score their points with a little less demonizing and a little more respect for those who disagree. that would be one heck of a new year's resolution. but social media it's been a season of polarization after donald trump's victory as the hill noted a new study found that 24% of democratic voters blocked unfriended or stopped following someone on sites like facebook and twitter. only 9% of republicans and independent voters did the same according to the poll by the public religion research institute. 28% of liberals said they distanced themselves on social media because of the content posted by their former friends, compared to 8% of conservatives. so some hard feelings still out there on the left. editor graydon carter is

ramping up his war on trump. trump has shown he doesn't always beat up on the big newspapers and networks one day after vanity fair called his trump tower grill possibly the worst restaurant ever the president tweeted has anybody looked at the poor numbers of vanity fair magazine, way down, big trouble, day. graydon carter, no talent will be out. carter has been after trump since the '80s. and carter blasted trump just before the election and doubted he would win. i don't think he's leaving vanity fair any time soon and vanity fair is touting itself as the magazine donald trump doesn't want you to read. that sounds like a bit of spectator sport but carter calls him a preening and vindictive strong man at the top living in gilded opulence surrounded by generals and business cronies. is this what a hunter looks like? we may look back on november 8th and january 20th as days that will live in infamy.

now hold on that's taken from fdr's famous line after the aerial attack on japan on december 7th 1941. graydon carter is comparing the election of a president to pearl harbor? looks like another journalist is suffering from trump trauma. >> ahead a look back at my interviews with donald trump and how his anti-media message evolved during the campaign. but first it hasn't been that much media scrutiny of why the democrats lost the election. or what's emerging as hillary's blame game. i thought i married an italian. my lineage was the vecchios and zuccolis. through ancestry, through dna i found out that i was only 16% italian. he was 34% eastern european. so i went onto ancestry, soon learned that one of our ancestors we thought was italian was eastern european. this is my ancestor who i didn't know about. he looks a little bit like me, yes. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story.

get started for free at ancestry.com

a lot has been overshadowed by the trump transition, but hillary clinton, her husband and her inner circle are in a blame game about her defeat and that has started to generate some headlines. >> but we're also learning more every day about the unprecedented russian plot to swing this election. and this is something that every american should be worried about. you know, we have -- we have to recognize that as the latest reports made clear, vladimir putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he

has a personal beef against me. >> do you believe this is a free and fair election? >> well, look, i think the russians clearly intervened in the election. and i think that the thank you we know that both the cia, the director of national intelligence, the fbi, all agree that the russians intervened to help trump. but the media didn't cover itself with glory on the way they handled, i think, the matter, "the new york times" reported this week in their own reporting said that they became an instrument for russian intelligence. >> -- the bogus e-mail deals, be vicinity indicated at the end. and she prevailed against it all. but you know, then at the end we had the russians, and the fbi deal, she couldn't prevail against that. >> former president also told the bedford, new york, record review that donald trump doesn't know much but he knows how to get angry white men to vote for him.

>> those angry white men that bill clinton are talking about are the same, quote, angry white men that got him elected president. and were the same angry white men that bill clinton was complaining about for months that the clintons weren't reaching. >> are the media doing an in-depth examination of why the democrats really lost? joining us is chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiners, and associate editor and columnist for real clear politics. susan six weeks after the lekd, bill clinton's talking about bogus e-mails, angry white men, and his grousing is becoming pretty big news. >> well, what's been drowned out is a close introspection of why democrats weren't able to win an election that everybody thought they were going to win very easily. but you can't ignore what influence the russian hacking or the late fbi letter from director comey to the congress had on the election because it was a close election. the outcome she won the popular

vote by several million votes, these are all good arguments. but i do think what's being drowned out is how democrats weren't able to reach out to the voters in those key swing rest but states. that's a conversation we're not hearing much about. >> not much. and that's not as sexy of course. i understand when the fbi affidavit was made public this past week the rationale that james comey used to look into the anthony weiner laptop and e-mails right before the election and he made it public and got so much coverage, i understand clinton people being upset about that. it was kind of flimsy. but there's all this drum beat about it's comey's fault, it's putin's fault, it's huma abedin's fault, it's the media's fault. do you think the media are buying into this blame game? >> no i think there's always a story of how the loser and the loser's team interprets the defeat. and they're all coming at it from different viewpoints. hillary's trying to kind of hide. she'll be embarrassed if the donors never give another dollar to the party so she's trying to give them something to hang

onto. john podesta,s campaign chairman saying there's things broken at the fbi. they're all having different responses. it is true what wur both referring to is they don't want to look inward at how many democratic voters just wouldn't get in the car and support her. and you know, bill clinton's wrong. the e-mail deal was not bogus. the e-mail deal really killed off her candidacy because it showed her like repeatedly long before the fbi letter from comey. she was under an fbi investigation. people felt she wasn't honest. they weren't motivated to support her. >> any of these things could be said in a typical election, but the essential here is it was hard to tell what hillary's core message was. but people also forget how tense relations were between hillary clinton and the press. but the media usually loves party and disarray stories and there's been some, absolutely. but i'm not seeing much of it, especially with the democrats now controlling nothing on capitol hill here. the white house, and it just -- we're talking about trump. >> i would correct you on that.

i think the media loves republicans in disarray stories. i don't think they're as attracted to democrats in disarr disarray. i do believe that the onslaught of attacks against trump in the mainstream media. what reporters are tweeting out on social media, it just shows me that the deck is stacked against trump. a lot of reporters didn't care for him as a candidate. just because of his style. and his approach. and i think that's what you're seeing now, in the reporting. and that's why, like look what happened after 2012 there was so much attention and focus on the autopsy report from the republicans and the fact that they were a splinter group. how were they get back together and move forward? you're not seeing any of that right now. maybe we'll see that later -- >> and so much attention focused on the gop civil war over trump during the primaries, and during the general election. but do you agree that is there -- is it not the question of mr. trump making so much news that he's soaking up all the oxygen that there is more media interest in when republicans are falling or having some kind of

civil war? >> i actually disagree about this moment. i think we're looking at trump transition makes incredible amount of news. it's just constantly pouring forth every hour. >> yes. >> and then you look at like you said they're not in control of anything. so we focus on whether the house democrats were re-electing nancy pelosi. we are focussed on the fact that keith ellison is a leading contender for the fight to run the democratic national committee. today,s you know, you're looking at still the remnants of what harry reid has done, the first senate democrats in the senate. there's i think there's a lot of focus on how kind of lost they are. >> right. >> and how much in denial they're in -- >> like it's overshadowing -- >> there's much more of a thing. we have a new president in eight years. >> we've probably never had a new president like donald trump who makes news just by tweeting. politico had an investigative report the other day, i found fascinating. top aide to hillary clinton, we're talking jennifer palmerry, jake sullivan, were in pretty regular touch by e-mail, by

phone, by text, with the top organizers for this let's make the, let's get the electors to go rogue, vote against donald trump and take the presidency away from him, even though he won 60 million votes. the clinton folks never quite committed to it but they certainly were aware of it. the media missed that story? >> well, first, i'd just like to point out more leaked e-mails, this time the campaign -- this was clearly coming from one of the electors. what could clinton's camp really do. think about that last debate when chris wallace asked whether trump would accept the outcome of the election and he said well we'll see. and clinton's response was well, that's horrifying. that's not how democracy works. how on earth could they now publicly get involved? so they -- >> you're saying that the clinton -- remnants of the clinton campaign had an incentive to hide this from the press -- >> oh, absolutely. >> knowing that they would be vilified for even giving tacit support to this like let's overturn the electoral college.

what's your take? >> they knew it was going to fail. remember, hillary clinton and bill clinton have to move on. i don't know what fantasies they have about their daughter running for public office one day but all of these democrats are scrambling for jobs. they're staying in this party. they're not going to leave the democratic party. there's nothing left of it so they're under different pressure from different groups and activists to remain engaged and say yes this is an outrage. >> when it comes to the media coverage do you think this is a big story that they did the same thing with the recount, kind of hands off. not opposing it. but now secretly were in touch with these people and i was kind of dismissing the whole thing as, up know, a show, a side show, wasn't going to go anywhere. if i had known the clinton campaign was in regular touch with people i would have tweet treated it as a much bigger story. >> it is a much bigger story but to the moo ed yeah they were downplaying it. >> especially how they played the story up at the end of october to their advantage to make trump -- i think they felt this was the nail in the coffin for trump. >> remember how crazy the media went after the third debate when

he would not vow to commit in advance to the result. i don't want to overstate it but it's pretty fascinating stuff particularly based on political stories. susan, a.b., great to see you. and after the break from las vegas to mar-a-lago, donald trump and i went one-on-one half dozen times during the campaign. look at how his message evolved during his march to the white house.

i interviewed donald trump more than a half dozen times during the campaign and what's fascinating looking back is how some of these themes on dealing with the media emerged, how fleeting other controversies seem, now that we know he's the next president. there was a time when even trump didn't think he was the favorite. you've been quoted as saying you have a 10% to maybe 20% chance of success. not great odds if this was a business deal you probably wouldn't do it. >> no. it's not good. i mean i don't know what my chances are. somebody asked me that say id i don't know, 10, 20%. i'm not saying it's a lock.

but i have something that works. >> there was a time when the media mocked him for talking about size while denigrating marco rubio. >> in the detroit debate, we you talked about the size of your hands -- >> i didn't talk about it. marco talked about it. >> i was going to say, he started it. you were responding. it was a joke. i didn't have any great problem with it. but it led to a tsunami of coverage including this front page headlines of "the new york times," the descent into donald trump's pants. how does that help you? >> look he made a statement that i had small hands. he made it up. he's a politician. politicians lie. i don't have small hands. i have good hands. look -- >> let the record show. >> okay. i have good hands. >> i always tried to ask trump about specific news outlets and journalists. >> ben smith, editor of buzzfeed, he told his reporters in' memo it's okay to call trump a mendacious racist because that's not an opinion, that's fact. the daily beast editor noah shaktman says people should boycott your businesses because he thinks you're a racist and a neofascist.

>> i'm the only one that speaks my mind and tells the truth and everybody knows i'm right. and i have great friends that are muslims and they call me, some of them, not some of them are not so thrilled, but at the highest level, and they call me and they said, what you did is right. there's a problem. we have to great to the bottom of it. there's a level of hatred, and viciousness, that we have to find out what we're going to do about it. >> talk about some of the journalists who've been attacking who are not in the opinion business after your proposal temporarily bar most muslims from coming to the united states. tom brokaw a dangerous proposal that overrides history, the law, and the foundation of america itself. >> you want me to comment on tom brokaw? i'm not a fan of tom brokaw. never was the fan. when i did the apprentice he came over to me when i was sitting with george stein braener. he said thank you mr. trump, because i had the big show on nbc and it was good for him for his newscast, now all of a sudden the first chance he gets heme. thank you, mr. trump, thank you so much for doing such a great

job. >> and we talked about the tech titan who owns "the washington post." >> but the reaction to the amazon founder jeff bezos, also owns "the washington post" tweeted that he'll offer you a one-way ticket on one of his company's rockets. >> i wouldn't go on his rockets. i don't like that world. i've seen too many of those rockets exploding before they get off the ground. i wouldn't like that. you talk about jeff bezos. he bought "the washington post." and he bought it as a thing to buy influence so that he doesn't have to pay tax at amazon. that's in my opinion. he has influence -- >> he paid for it privately. >> sure, but he uses it -- >> doesn't affect amazon. >> of course it does. he bought it privately so that he can influence people not to tax amazon. come on. i said you were smart. okay? and the only reason i say this because "the washington post" treats me terribly. i mean, if i did 12 good things in one day, i would have 12 bad stories. it's terrible. >> well, speaking of did >> but the press is very

dishonest. >> you've gone from calling journalists scum to sleaze bags. but you also said -- >> those aren't strong enough. >> trump constantly slammed cnn now but there was a time when he was not too happy with fox. >> you said that cnn treats you better than fox. now in terms of the commentators, charles krauthammer, george will, karl rove, steve hayes, rich lowry -- >> they're terrible. >> they have ripped you. >> although rich lowry is coming along even today he's got a nice article. >> and you have hit them back in speeches and interviews and on twitter but would you say that fox is unfair to you in its news coverage? >> it doesn't matter. because look when i -- when they do a story on me and then a guy like krauthammer gets up and he's so angry, you can see, he's crazed. george will is crazed. they mention the name trump and he starts to shake. >> they don't think you're a real conservative. >> let me tell you. you know what i am? i'm a winner. i know how to win. i've been winning all my life. these guys aren't winners. >> and people sometimes forget that conservative journalists were among his biggest

detractors. >> more importantly about the guy, i'm not treated well when they do a story and then i get krauthammer commenting. or i get george will, or steven hayes. i mean this poor guy, they mention trump and he goes -- it's like, he becomes -- he becomes like a shaky monster. i never saw anything like that. the level of hatred is incredible. and you know the amazing thing? i'm pretty much on their side on most of the issues. >> bill o'reilly said to you you were being petty and thin skinned in going after the journalists. i say you have every right to hit back when you're criticized but you almost seem obsessive about it. my question is, is it that you can't restrain yourself or is it a strategy? because a lot of your supporters despise the media. >> it's neither. i don't mind a bad story when i do something wrong. hey, when i do something wrong, bad stories, doesn't even bother me. i'd rather not have it -- >> you said you're controversial. people think you're divisive. >> i don't like a bad story or a false story, or a false critique. when i do something good.

and they don't give me the credit that i deserve. okay? such as, you know, not only -- i'll take something good, do something amazing and they'll make it negative. so they're very biased. it wouldn't matter if i were abe lincoln doing the debate, krauthammer will say negative. it wouldn't matter if i was william jennings bryant, because they say he was great, unfortunately we don't have too many tapes, right? but it wouldn't matter who i was, they have their critique written up about me long before the debate even takes place. >> but does it help -- >> it's dishonest people. >> it's honest because they disagree with you. >> first of all it makes me feel good. second of all, second of all, it takes away credibility. you have to fight for yourself. which is the problem with our country, we don't fight for yourselves. we're not respected anymore as a country. you have to fight for yourself. when you're right. look, again, if they critique me and i thought they were right, i wouldn't be upset by it.

but when you do something great, and they try and belittle you, you got to fight. >> trump knows how to fight. more of my sit-down with the president-elect in just a moment.

a look back at my interviews with trump and his less than flattering views of the press. at times trump would seem to strike a bit of a truce with the media. after months of attacking the presses, dishonest and slim, you seem mostly to be toning it down. are you from nuclear to low level war fair. >> i started off with basically zero and now i'm at 42. in florida i'm 48. i think i'm probably a little different. you have to be able to change a little bit, but i think i'm a little bit different. i'm doing very well. >> are journalists treating you with new respect because they think you may win? >> not all. the wall street journal has been terrific. they really changed their views and i gained a great respect for some of the people in the wall street journal. some of the others really changed their views and rightfully so. i'm not saying from my stand point. time magazine wrote one of the most beautiful cover stories,

last week talking about this whole campaign. so yeah, i think there is a big change in mood and mode. >> the seize fire periods would never last. >> you say again and again that most political journalists, not all are dishonest. why do you think that is? >> there is great dishonesty in the media. i didn't see it to the same extent with the financial media. i've only been a politician for three months. they don't want to cover me accurately. they have a couple sites like politico. it's dishonest. >> you tweeted about them the other day. why doesn't somebody do something about the clones. you called them pure scum. >> they are a very dishonest site and i would say problably - >> why? >> because they write things that aren't true and rare recall us. >> you are constantly denouncing some journalists that talk about you and write about you. unprofessional and bias you say,

nbc's chuck todd a real loser and dumb as a rock and george will a total dope, fox's charles totally over rated clown. >>. i don't think you really believe that. i think they criticize you and your instinct like a boxer is to punch back. >> i do punch back. those are people that i don't think treated me fairly. awhile ago they said he will never run and never file his papers. now they don't know what to say and all of a sudden, i get really big poll numbers and they are really good. >> fascinating to look back. still to come the news week reporter that made reckless charges and blamed hostility on twitter for a health setback.

digging into business dealings and tucker charleston confronting him about twitter messages including one with absolutely no evidence that he believes trump is institutionalized. >> i read your twitter feed. at one point, you ask of conservatives why they hate ameri america. you describe trump as stupid and lazy and [ bleep ], f you. >> hold on. >> a lot of things are out of context. >> yeah, i want you to answer

this question. was he in a mental hospital in 1990 as you alleged or not? >> let me answer the question. >> go ahead. >> look, you're not fooling anybody. you're trying to stop me from giving the answer. [ laughter ] >> give me give you the answer. >> this is a little nutty. i got to be honest. i'm asking you -- >> i noticed earlier -- >> that's stunningly responsible. here is where it gets strange after taking flak on twitter. he said he suffered a seizure of twin tweeted a flashing strobe light and threat of a seizure. he's threatening legal action. >> now copy cats. >> apparently, i can't look at my twitter feed anymore, but apparently, a lot of people find this very funny. a lot of people who identify themselves as trump supporters are loading up my twitter feed with more strobes. it is amazing to me that, you know, simply because i'm a political reporter, simply

because i write about, you know, donald trump that we have become so sick and twisted in this country that people think they have, you know, the right and obligation to inflict, you know, potentially very serious injury. >> this doesn't sound like a criminal case to me but we certainly wish him good health. i can't fathom anyone trying to induce a seizure but trying to dismiss the donald trump in a mental hospital, he's hardly an innocent victim here. your top tweets are backer one of the best and worst aspects of the coverage. ed shurmur openly extension of the hillary campaign best host spacing 118 and trust total loss and exposed how media colludes, sanders got a short straw as a result. worst was the media distorted by giving over $2 billion in free

publicity and come pliplained h. how charges against hrc were handled, media ignored, excused, trump no benefit of doubt ashamed of my journalism degree and never a dull moment, worst, use of the term elite and realized 80% plus of journalists are lazy and not too bright. ouch. anchors always gave a personal opinion and closed segment with ugliness. orange skin, fake hair. facts were the best. at least the hair is real. that's it for this edition. merry christmas, happy hanukkah. i wrapped up special prime time with megyn kelly in the 2016 campaign. fascinating hour. first airing monday night at 9:00 and take a look at our facebook page and let us know what you think. media buzz, we respond and post a lot of original content there called your buzz. continue the conversation on twitter. have a great holiday.

we're back here on new year's day. see you then with the latest buzz. we begin with a fox news urgent iconic singer george michael has died. that according to sky news u.k. the star's publicist saying he passed away peacefully at home at age of 53. as a solo star and before that one half of the musical duo wham, george michael sold more than 100 million records, you may have even heard the well nope christmas song a few times today. ♪ last christmas, i gave you my heart ♪ ♪ ♪ but the very next day you gave it away ♪ this year to save me from