♪ howard: this is media buzz. i'm howard kurtz. i want to take a moment to focus on a serious threat to journalism. its one i offer with great sadness. it's bigger than the negative coverage of president trump. it began with the decision by numerous journalists that donald trump president trumpresident to dangerous, it was their duty to conduct a crusade against him. i reported on the new york times forcing out the editorial page editor, james bennett, how he and the publisher defended their decision to post an op ed on the

protest by senator tom cotton only to have salsburger denounce the decision. the philadelphia inquirer's editor was pushed out after apologizing for one admittedly bad column headline, buildings matter too. i understand the anger and frustration of black journalists sparked by the brutal killing of of george floyd and decades of police brutality. there's a growing pattern of imbalance and intolerance at some of the top news organizations. for many journalists, that's fine, they don't want contrary opinions published. there are many points of view on this network every day. the new approach is being touted as a business model. most readers at the times are viewers of cnn or msnbc, are liberal. there's a sense of mission as they slam trump, embrace black

lives matter and demand resignations if their bosses announce owe posin opposing vie. fairness and balance are our highest values. these latest developments at the new york times and elsewhere suggest we are losing to the social justice warriors and what i vias a battle for the soul of journalism. ahead, chris wallace offers his take on these thorny questions. joining us now, guy benson, host of thof fox news radio show, gin turner and ray suarez, hos washington correspondent for euro news. guy, what is your takes not just on the times pushing out james bennett, he didn't read the tom cotton piece in advance, but the broader question of how the result was forced by a bunch of staffers who felt that this was just unacceptable, couldn't even

be published. >> it wasn't the readers of the new york times. it wasn't the far left stable of columnists and editorial board members at the new york times. it was the journalists of the new york times who decided that an op ed from a sitting senator that used precedent and law to back up an argument that happens to be supported by roughly half, if not more than half of the country was too far. it was not just too far, in fact, it was dangerous was the word that was used, it was dangerous to the safety of journalists. i think that that is actually dangerous. that's the dangerous thing, the conclusion they came to and it's actually frightening to see because howie, when you look at what they published on the op ed pages for years, had they said there was not enough editing, nonsense, they said it was too incendiary, this was obviously back-filling brand-new standards to satisfy a mob that was not

outside the building, but inside the building. howard: all right. well, jillian, brett stephens writes the paper lost its nerve and calls it an invitation to to intellectual cowardice. there seems to be a growing newsroom culture of one mistake and you're out. >> yeah, that seems to be the growing trend these days. no room for explanation. no room for consideration of how the decision was arrived at to publish this op ed. a quick note here, though. this may have been a revolt by journalists at the times that got the column reneged, got benefit pushed out. it's not the first time that the new york times capitulated to mo mob pressure, even in the last year. remember last august, the news division had a front page headline altered after they got backlash on social media, people accused the times of misrepresenting something president trump said in his

speech. it turned out to have been taken almost verbatim from his speech. they're making the decisions on the editorial side and journalism side so it seems to be the paper -- this is a concerted effort, not something that is happening piecemeal, it's a definite direction that the paper as a whole is moving in. also, if we're at the time now where americans can no longer have their own opinion, the moment is much more dangerous than we even think as we're battling a global pandemic. it's more dangerous. howard: i'm trying of underscore that here. senator cotton has certainly been using this backlash, let's take a quick look. >> this all goes back to the publisher and his unwillingness to stand up to a bunch of 20-year-olds and 30-year-olds who are raised on social justice seminars on our campuses. howard: so great fodder for tom cotton. should a group of liberal or black reporters or any reporter

be able ptotic tate what's an acceptable op ed. >> dictate might not be the word i would use but it seems to have been played very badly, both internally and externally, by the new york times. if there's a united states senator who wants to put troops on the streets of american cities, i think i want to know that. and even though i might have guessed in the case of tom cotton, it's not a bad thing for me to to see it in black and white. there has been an interesting handling of this by the times in that they also ran subsequent pieces by other opinion journalists in-house, ran editorial page disclaimers and explanations. i think any time that you run a piece by a senator who makes no bones about the fact that he thinks your paper is a junkie paper, and then he gets to both get his piece in america's most

prestigious newspaper, knock the paper, and get a propaganda win afterwards, it's a win all around for tom cotton. he gets everything he wanted and nothing he didn't want. howard: hold on. we're running short on time. we'll come back -- sorry, gillian. on the news time, hellane cooper said on meet the press that it's preposterous to think that donald trump could play a constructive role. sure there, could be conservative columnist on the new york times but they're all anti-trump. >> even the right leaning columnists at the times hate trump. this isn't about donald trump. this is about a newspaper making a decision based on pressure from within to spike ideas not to respond. we heard in the last answer from ray, there were follow-up columns and editorials and letters to the editor and a huge

controversy over what tom cotton wrote. if you don't like something that ran in the paper, run a piece. call is fascist if you want to, which is what one columnist did the next day. don't apologize for running a piece that was within any standard within the bounds of reasonable debate. howard: ray, just briefly, as a minority journalist, do you think the mainstream media have invited this backlash by not covering the police brutality and racism as thoroughly as they should have? >> well, after 40 years in the business, howie, you can imagine my surprise to find out just how powerful black and brown reporters are. it is a novel idea, one that i don't subscribe to. howard. it's more of a generational difference than an ethnic and racial difference, more of a

generational difference. howard: when we come back, is the press portraying the president as out-of-touch on these protests and on these racial issues? that's next. and that protects our customers 24/7. sorry i'm late, everybody, and apologies for my appearance. you look fine. we were just talking about -- yeah, right. i look like a wanted poster. i didn't have time to get my beard routine in this morning, so... what beard routine? ah. well, the key is maple nectar. gives it that sheen. is there something wrong with my screen? -mnh-mnh. -jamie, what are talking about? you're right, alan. we should be talking about bundling home and auto with progressive, not this luscious mane of mine. [ laughs ] jamie, do you know what a beard is? feel cool. because the tempur-breeze transfers heat... away from your body. so you feel cool... night after night. during the tempur-pedic summer of sleep, experience the mattress ranked number one in customer satisfaction by jd power. in customer satisfaction i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem.

and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously. it's only human to find inspiration in nature. and also find answers.

our search to transform... ...farm waste into renewable natural gas led chevron to partner with california bioenergy. working to provide an alternative source of power... ...for a cleaner way forward. the xfinity voice remote will find exactly that.for, happy stuff. if the groups happy, i'm happy. you can even say a famous movie quote and it will know the right movie. that'll do, donkey! you're expecting prince charming? you can learn something new any time. education. and if you're not sure what you're looking for, say... surprise me. just ask "what can i say?" to find more of what you love with the xfinity voice remote.

>> i'm tired of pain. pain you feel when you watch something like this. i'm here to ask you to make it stop. howard: as a washington post poll says, 74% of americans support the nationwide protest. the media are casting president trump as out of step and the new york times headlines says as americans shift on racism, trump digs in, saying the president increasingly sounds like a cultural relic, isolated from liberals and some republican and military leaders.

the debate is reflected on the air waves. >> we have to work together to confront bigotry and prejudice whereever they appear. but we'll make no progress by falsely labeling tens of millions of decent american as racist or bigots. >> the president is probably doing the most harm when it comes to race relations, police relations in this country because he is behind the times. he's not in 2020, not even in 1968. >> it's obvious an alliance of media, political and radical forces are trying to demoralize millions of law abiding americans who believe in equality and just is the for all and who also -- justice for all and who also support president trump. howard: guy, certainly we're seeing a big shift in public opinion but the president has certainly stressed law and order. are some in the media going too far as depicting him as a relic

who is out-of-step with his party. >> griff: i thin.>> i think the a made and the polling is showing us the american people as you noted including many republicans are more open than ever to the need for reform when it comes to policing, are more open minded to the complaints that have been aired for years by african-americans about the way they're treated in this country. people are saying hang on, let's really listen here perhaps for the first time ever, that's a strong majority opinion. you could say some of the president's rhetoric may be lagging behind that. i find it interesting to watch the decision many in the media have made and certainly many on the hard left and that's sometimes one in the same to pursue one of the least pop of later ideas in done tri which -- country which is defunding the police. it does seem at a moment where there's an opportunity for reform and progress in this country, you have people on both sides running into corners that are polarizing. howard: we'll come back to

defund the police. ray, the president has repeatedly expressed shock and horror about george floyd's killing, has seen the terrible video as we all have. is it fair for a washington post news story to say he's taking divisive stances on policing, consistenconfederate symbols toe his mostly white spouters. >> i don't know why -- supporters. >> i don't know why the president would take to twitter to associate the names of with victory and winning. he has to explain it that people left those places to win wars elsewhere. who knows. who knows. i think this is a moment where legacy media is being outpaced and overrun by the fact that media is no longer those big institutions but it's tens of millions of people walking around the united states with a high def video camera in their pocket which is part of their telephone. we're seeing all kinds of things from all kinds of places

inspiring, deflating, horrifying, shocking and wonderful, all in the same set of days. and this is the story that's very hard for the conventional legacy media to get its arms around and it may be falling back on old o ideas and old tros about how to covers this thing. howard: the atlanta police chief has resigned after the fatal shooting of a black man who appeared to be resisting arrest and that led protesters to burn down a wendy's in that city and a cnn crew was attacked. do you think the relentless media coverage since george floyd's killing has moved the needle on public opinion? is it part of the reason we are seeing these big changes in polls is because we collectively are now grappling with this. gillian: i would like to think so.

coverage of the death of george floyd and coverage of the protests have not been monolithic. there's been criticism how a lot of journalists who have maybe been overly sympathetic towards protesters, too much in kahoots with liberal outlets covering the store. there's been a diverse showing of of coverage of the events on the ground. whether local or national outlets, we've seen the protests from every angle. even the reconstruction that was done of the killing of george floyd on memorial day, we got that view from multiple cameras, civilian cameras, security cameras, in real-time, on different angles. so we are getting more information in that sense. i think part of the problem covering stories like this for journalists, is it's very difficult to set your human empathy aside and just talk about what you're seeing in any given moment, very hard not to talk about protesters without

context discontextualiss. howard: you mentioned defund the police, are some journalists trying to explain that away, it doesn't really mean defund the police, it means redirect money. >> there were a bunch of liberal journalists anxious about the phrase. they got out in front of it, saying that's not what the words really mean in this context and then a bunch of people on the left said that is precisely what it means. the new york times wrote a column saying we literally want to take all money away from police departments which i would argue could be more dangerous if implemented than an op ed from tom cotton bu, but what do i kn. howard: that was an op ed contributor to the times. joe biden was asked about this on cbs news. let's take a look. >> i think if you take defund

the police literally it is insanely radical and impractical proposal. >> we should not get caught up in the word, we should get clear about the demand. and the demand is for transformation of policing. howard: you obviously didn't see joe biden there. could i have that sound bite, please? >> do you support defunding the police? >> no, i don't support defunding the police. i support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness. howard: with joe biden saying he doesn't support defunding the police and with the trump team trying to say many people around him and many democrats do, the journalists have to make these distinctions. >> as the presumptive democratic nominee for president says he doesn't believe it, i don't think i can side with guy in finding it more significant than an op ed columnist in the

new york times did. opinion plots across a broad continuum, all the way from, yes, literally ending policing to something that looks a little bit more like the police reform that came out of the 1960s and '70s. it is all over the place. but elected officials have been very cautious so far. >> but ray, quickly, there's a new poll that shows democrat voters split almost down the middle on the proposition of defunding the police. that's a seed change and that's significant, in my opinion. howard: let me get gillian back in briefly. police reform is the hot story right now but when the protests fade and the 24/7 coverage fades that could fade as well. your thoughts? gillian: yeah, it will. i don't think the journalists or media at large is asphalt for the discrepancy over the word defund. i think the core of the problem there is the activists who chose the name are themselves divided.

some want the police defunded entirely, some only want the police force's budget transformed. whatever you want to call it. that's what the media coverage is reflecting here. we can't hang on -- guy mentioned the new york times op ed. it was an op ed saying we want the police being completely defunded. that's not what the activists want. they need to coalesce around a strategy themselves. howard: the seattle times has criticized a photo come ladies and gentlemen on the fox news -- collage on the fox news website, calling it a mashup of different pictures taking on different days. an editor's note said it didn't delineate between the images and has been replaced. a recent slide show depicting scenes from sat he'll included -- seattle included a picture from saint paul, minnesota. fox news regrets the errors and these are unfortunate on such a sensitive subject.

ahead, chris wallace weighs in. and the press calls it a consistenconspiracy theory as te president tweets about an alleged police assault against a 75-year-old protester. s. draw the line with roundup. s. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to target weeds precisely and kill them right down to the root. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. they are compelled to step to the front lines. and into the unknown... for all of us.

>> do you think that's an appropriate move of the president at this moment? >> i just saw the tweet. i know nothing of the episode. howard: many republican senators ducking reporters' questions about president trump's tweet on 75-year-old martin gugino, you've seen the video of him being shoved to the ground by two buffalo police officers who have been charged with assault. president drawing condemnation for tweeting a conspiracy theory, saying he could be an antifa provocoteur, that he fell harder than he was pushed. this began on an anonymous blog. it was picked up by one american news. it was blasted out by the

president to 82 million twitter followers. gillian: it was made worse when a reporter asked kayleigh mcenany about it and she responded saying the president had every right to ask the question. president trump's tweet did contain a question. it clearly contained an accusations. howardaccusation. the first sentence said this person could be an antifa operative. just because the president has the right, of course he has the right to ask any question he wants and level any accusation he wants. the question is, as lisa murkowski put it, why. why fan the flame? why say something like that? that's the key question for journalists to look at here. we don't have an answer to that yet. we don't know why the president decided to do it. it was only harmful, not helpful to anybody. howard: guy benson, martin gugino has been diagnosed with a

brain injury. he is still in the hospital. his lawyer calls the comments dark, dangerous and untrue accusations. i understand why president trump hits back hard against some political opponents. it's hard for me to understand why you would do this. do you think the media criticism is justified? guy: this is along the lines of the joe scarborough murder conspiracy theory that the president can't help but amplify and perpetuate on his twitter feed. we saw the video of what happened. even if you think it's an antifa guy doing bad things with his phone, trying to scam the police, he was knocked over. he hit his head and was bleeding on the street from his head and they callously walked past him, the officers did. to try to turn that into a nefarious or sinister thing on the victim's behalf i think is preposterous and certainly beneath a president of the united states, pedaling in that sort of nonsense. gillian: he's also not antifa.

there was no evidence at the time showing that he was antifa. the president of the united states should have a higher threshold. guy: i totally agree. howard: i want to go to ray suarez. kayleigh mcenany said he has the right to ask those questions. of course he does. but not providing any specific evidence of it is i think what is fueling a lot of the media outrage. ray: the press secretary's answer was clearly disingenuous and an attempt to deflect. i doubt in their war-gaming the president's messaging in the media shop, they rubbed their hands together in glee on him blasting out conspiracy theory reporting that has no basis in fact, that makes him look callous and dismissive of a man that was clearly injured. it was not a win for the

president. presidential prestige and credibility are a real thing. you don't want to i fritter it away on something like this. some days i can't believe it. howard: the president gets savagely attacked by the media. he has the right to punch back. he often does it effectively. why he would go after this protester is something i have trouble understanding. great to see you all this sunday. next on media buzz, today's newsrooms are torn between traditional editors and staffers demanding social justice. who is winning this war? chris wallace is on deck.

howard: back to our top story, the emerging crisis in journalism and constant clashes over dissenting views at major news organizations. joining us now is chris wallace, the host of fox news sunday and author of a new book, the story of the atomic bomb and 116 days that changed the world.

welcome, chris. >> good to be with you, howie. howard: is journalism becoming more intolerant? 10 or 20 years ago would we have seen the publisher of the new york times completely flipping and criticizing a conservative op ed that he defended because a bunch of newsroom staffers didn't like it. >> you know, it feels like the inmates are running the asylum. you know, i've been critical sometimes of the times and i think that their liberal tendency tends to bleed out onto their news coverage, some people have accused fox of the same thing in terms of our tendencies. but i thought what happened in the last week at the times was just extraordinary. tom cotton writes this article about sending the army, send in the military to quell the protests at the height of all of the violence and it's in the op ed page. the op ed page where you get columns and various views of

various political stripes. and there was a tremendous blowback from inside the times and so much so that the publisher as you say decided he had to defend it and there was so much more blowback that he caved. he then said it was bad. the paper said it was bad. they apologized for it. and the op ed editor, a pretty distinguished journalist named james bennett, i'm not sure whether he quit or was fired. it was a profile in a lack of courage. howard: it's clear that he was forced out. given the long history of racism and police brutality in this country, crystalized by the killing of george floyd, does it now seem to you that there are many people in newsrooms, this goes far beyond the new york times, who just don't believe that dissenting views let's say sending in the military to control riots should be aired at all, that it's too of fence i've to them -- offensive to them? >> yes. clearly, if you read some of the tweets, some of the online

statements that members of the new york times reporters in times said, that's exactly what they were saying. look, there are not two sides to every issue. racism, there's not two sides. there's not one that says here's why racism is good. there's not two sides to aduefuf hitler. it's not over the line to discuss the issue of how of to put down violent protests and that's what tom cotton was doing. he was saying send in active duty military. i'm not sure i agree with him about it. it certainly would have been an extraordinary step. it doesn't seem like it's so far over the line that there aren't two sides to that argument. you can object to it. you can say it's absolutely wrong if you're a reader or reporter at the times, you can write a counter argument, hope they publish it. to suggest it was proper. this is a -- to suggest that it was improper, to suggest it was improper for him to even express

that opinion, that's not good. howard: it's called debate, called free expression. this standard may have it roots in part to president trump, many journalists decided they would toss out the rule books of fairness and standards because they deemed donald trump to be such a threat to the country, they wanted to stop him from winning the white house, wanted to get him impeached, they want to see him defeated in november. do you agree with me and do you think it's a slippery slope. >> i absolutely do. i think it's worse than that. it didn't start in my opinion with donald trump. put it in personal terms. i get complemented a lot when people see me -- they're not seeing me much right now with the quarantining. i get complemented for being fair. i actually find it fairly depressing. as you and i know, it used to be that fairness was what kept you

from getting fired, that was the minimum requirement for a reporter is that you're fair. fairness was -- howard: you didn't get a medal for being fair. >> yeah. today, i think that it's gotten so polarized whether it's on cable news, whether it's in newspapers, that fairness is kind of unusual and that is a terribly sad reflection on our of business. howard: indeed. there's another side to this. you gave a speech a few months ago in which you said president trump is engaged in the most direct assault on media in history. >> i think that trump calling the media the enemy of the american people speaks for itself. i think it's outrageous. having said that, i think -- again, i don't know whether he is the cause or it was happening -- i think it was happening before him. you see some reporters now who have become advocates.

i see it in the press briefings now. you know, i was pretty tough in the press briefings with ronald reagan and his press secretaries in the '80s. we were trying to get information. some of the press briefings, the white house press corps is supposed to be one of the top jobs in journalism, it's more playing gotcha or advance their point of view. that's not what we're supposed to be doing. that's what i see among my colleagues in the media. i'm not holding myself up as something grand. i think too many reporters have fallen into the role of being advocates and frankly with this president anti-trump add mow voo -- advocates and we've got to be neutral. we've got to play it straight and call balls and strikes whether it's something the president does that's good or of bad, whether it's something that joe biden does that's good or bad. i don't think we can be taking a side in this argument. howard: yeah, unfortunately i think taking a side, if you're catering to the anti-trump side,

has become a business model for many organizations but final question on this. it's easy for younger journalists to dismiss you call us old timers, to say your brand of journalism doesn't change anything, your companies weren't sensitive enough to black frustration and anger over the years and that's why what matters now is social justice, not some abstract notion of objectivity. >> i think that the truth -- what's the line, the truth shall set you free. i mean, it was actually predated me, you know, it was the journalism, the '60s, the '70s, the coverage of the civil rights movement, the coverage of brutality of southern sheriffs, nothing has done more to advance the civil rights movement than shining a light of reality. i think when reporters start advocating -- editorial pages, opinion people, they want to advocate, that's what they're doing. when reporters start taking

sides, i think that's very dangerous. howard: well-put. stick around, chris. more with chris wallace in a moment on the agonizing decision to drop the atomic bomb in 1945 and the media's role during those tension-packed days.

i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. once-weekly trulicity is for type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. it starts acting from the first dose. and it lowers risk of heart attack, stroke, or death in people with known heart disease or multiple risk factors. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin

raises low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. we're committed to helping ensure trulicity is available and affordable. learn more at trulicity.com. howard: more now with fox news sunday host chris wallace and his book about countdownst 45

and the decision to drop the atomic bomb on japan. in july 1944 harry truman had no idea he would be fdr's running mate. then he becomes president and he meets with the war cabinet and there's quite a debate. explain. >> well, one of the things -- the best review i got about my book, somebody said i knew what happened in 1945 but this book reads like a history thriller. that's what i was trying to do, countdown, 116 days, and one of the things i was trying to do is put you in the scene with all of the uncertainty, all of the arguments back and forth at key stages in the process. for instance, you're quite right, harry truman was vice president for 82 days, roosevelt dies on april 12th and after truman is sworn in, the secretary of war takes him aside and says mr. president, i've got to tell you about a project, truman knew nothing about the manhattan project to develop the bomb. when he's having his first war

cabinet meetings in june of '45 with people like secretary stinson, general of the army, george marshall, there's a debate about invading japan. invading japan was going to be a blood bath. the estimates were it was going to continue the war for another year and-a-half and there would be half a million american casualties and a million japanese casualties. at the end of the meeting, john mccloy, assistant secretary of war, said -- it hadn't been brought up. he said i bet we ought to have our heads examined if we don't discuss dropping the bomb, using the atom bomb, which hadn't been tested yet. the scientists are trying to make sure the bomb will work. it wasn't tested until three weeks before it was dropped on her shhiroshima and the flight w when they're flying to drop it on hiroshima, doesn't know whether the aftershocks will knock the plane out of the sky. howard: what struck me was a new york times science reporter

named william lawrence, who was brought in behind the scenes, was sent to to los alamos, he disappeared for months and he got all the inside information about the super secret manhattan project and he was on the second plane when they dropped the bomb on nagasaki. how could the government trust a reporter with such a sensitive secret. >> there wasn't all the social media. once he was under -- you know, inside the bubble at los alamos and tinian island and the plane that dropped the second bomb, he didn't have any way to get out the story if he wanted to. it's not like he could have tweeted something. it speaks to a bigger issue which was how different the culture of the country was then. leslie groves, the general and the head of the manhattan project went to the new york times and said i want your best science reporter and william lawrence had won a pulitzer prize. i want him to come behind the screen. he's going to get the whole story of the development of the atom bomb. he can't write a single thing

until we've dropped the bomb and the story breaks and the times trusted the pentagon, the pentagon trusted the times. and first of all, he was the one who coined the phrase the atomic age. there was a sense of unity in the country then, of pulling together for a common of cause we just don't have today. howard: i've got half a minute. there was a test as you write in new mexico, people could see it from miles around, the atomic bomb. what did the military tell the associated press when it said what's going on here? >> i think they said -- they lied about it. they said there had been some ammunition dump or something. i don't like that part of the story too much. i'm never in favor of the government lying. but obviously they couldn't say we just exploded the first atom bomb in history and have the technology to end the war. howard: right. i have to say, this is researched, it's an absolute

page-turner. congratulations on the book. great to see you s. >> howie, thank you. howard: from old movies to tv shows to confederate monuments, the cancel structure is suddenly delivering swift verdicts but is it out of control? that's next. whether it's bribes to roll over. ...or an overdue makeover. get all your pet essentials right when you need them, with curbside pickup at petsmart. just order online, drive up, check-in, and pick up. feel cool. because the tempur-breeze transfers heat... away from your body. so you feel cool... night after night. during the tempur-pedic summer of sleep, experience the mattress ranked number one in customer satisfaction by jd power.

in customer satisfaction anolon pioneered the hard- anodized non-stick pan. we spent 35 years perfecting it. we put non-stick inside and out, so it's easier to clean. we invented an induction-ready, extra-thick aluminum base, so it can take the heat. then we added an edge-to-edge stainless steel bottom, so it's truly dishwasher-safe. most importantly, we made it for you. anolon. the ultimate nonstick. get yours at anolon.com

howard: hbo max has yanked gone with the wind, the classic film set on a southern plantation in atlanta during the civil war era. the company saying the movie features racist depictions that were wrong then and are wrong today. that's not all. such tv shows as paramount's cops and a & e's live pd have been axed and the nick junior cartoon paw patrol is under fire. joining us now, clarence page, column i for the chicago tribune. does some of the cancel culture,

where even the figures of paw patrol are being criticized, has it reached the point of absurdity. >> it ail -- it always happens where these things get to this point. what disturbed me, as far as the cops shows, for example, that's the most successful franchise in prime time tv and the complaint is that they show the cops in too positive of a light. i personally always preferred the wire because the wire always had that nuance that all the cops aren't good and all the criminals aren't bad which is the way life it. in this case, it's finally taken root with the cancel culture, ever since the killing of george floyd we have seen a big traumatic shockwave that's gone through our society including our media and that's why we've

got the kind of controversy you're talking about this morning. howard: hbo says it will bring back gone with the wind but those have a racial discussion first. look, are there also benefits -- >> [ indiscernible ] howard: are there positive benefits. >> amos and an di the di -- an, they won't release except for academic purposes. cbs has been sitting on that for 50 years. howard: you have the vogue editor issuing an apology for not hiring enough black employees, for running material that is considered intolerant or hurtful. is that a positive side effect of this whole debate? >> a surprising side effect to moment i think it's healthy in the long run. andre tally, an african-american who ran the magazine with her for several years, one of the highest ranking black folks in major media, he compared her

statement to elijah goodell apologize -- roger good gel more oroger goodell moreor less apoll without mentioning the name of colin kaepernick. anna wintour didn't go into details, just gave a generic apology. it's probably not the best way to handle the situation. it does show how management is taking the complaints seriously now. howard: i want to touch on nascar banning confederate flags at its events. you have protesters defacing confederate statues and some military leaders, although president trump says he's not considering it, want some of the bases renamed that are named for confederate generals. this has been brewing for a long time. why has it caught fire now? >> as you know, i'm an army veteran, i'm accustomed to these kind of controversies, that we have bases named after officers

who fought against the united states. why now? i go back to george floyd. there is a sense across the country now that you can't argue these things away like a lot of previous stories because of the video. it was so striking, watching floyd's life get squeezed out of him. now, everybody is taking a new look at our attitudes towards race and that includes the military. either president trump's going to win the argument because he's president, commander in chief, but the argument's going to -- howard: i'm happy to have this army veteran's opinion. thank you very much for joining us. and we'll be right back. if you have a garden you know, weeds are low down little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to target weeds precisely and kill them right down to the root. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years.

we hope you find these digital solutions helpful to bank from almost anywhere. deposit a check with your phone or tablet. check balances, pay bills, and more. send money to people you know and trust with zelle. explore all you can do with our digital tools from almost anywhere. pnc bank. howard: the media are finally focusing again on the coronavirus, a story was practically abandoned during the nationwide protests against racism. covid cases are rising in 22

states. sometimes the new highs largely because states are reopening economies but i think the lack of media interest also sent a signal to frustrated americans that thepack pandemic was -- the pandemic was all but over. unfortunately it is not. the media rarely raised the virus risk of the packed protests after george floyd's death because they mostly supported the cause but they are ripping president trump's decision to hold an oklahoma rally next week where by the way those attending have to sign a release saying they won't sue if they get infected. the press fell down on the job when a hotter story with better ratings came along. and we have to do a better job of informing people of the risks from a deadly disease that unfortunately hasn't run its course. that's it for this edition of media buzz. i'm howard kurtz. hope you like our new graphics and music. we hope you like our facebook page. we post my daily columns there. we continue the conversation on twitter at howard kurtz. check out my podcast.

you can subscribe on of pandora and spotify, as well as apple itunes and other places or your amazon device. we're back here next sunday, 11:00 eastern, we'll see you then with the latest buzz. ♪ leland: we start with a fox news alert. there are new protests planned this afternoon in atlanta, the site of the latest fatal shooting of a black man by police in america. it happened outside of a wendy's restaurant friday night. that's when 27-year-old rayshard brooks was shot and killed after taking an officer's taser and running off with it. surveillance and body cam video catching much but not all of what happened and the interactions between brooks and the officers before the deadly incident. hello, everyone, this is a brand-new hour of america's news headquarters. thank you for joining us. i'm eric shawn. arthel. arthel: hi, eric, thank you. i'm arthel neville. the officer who shopped brooks

had bee