Speaking on Monday’s Outnumbered Overtime, FNC’s Special Report host Bret Baier made a number of points that, as usual, won’t be made by CNN and MSNBC hosts. Among them, Baier told host Harris Faulkner that White House reporters should “want to advance the ball on substance” in their questioning at briefings instead of fight with President Trump.
Faulkner led up to that by stating that she had “wanted to ask you this for a long time,” which was about the media’s conduct during the briefings: “When we watch those news conferences….and we see people who are journalists like you and I are, Bret, asking the same questions, kind of over and over, and having those moments of contention, have we moved to a point now where maybe that only works for the President?”
Baier replied that Trump “thinks it works, because he thinks that sparring is good to shore up his supporters.” But from a media perspective, the FNC host argued that reporters should be there “to advance the ball on substance, not get in a fight with” Trump and shouldn’t preclude them from “ask[ing] pointed questions.”
Instead, Baier added that they should “ask them in a way you try to advance the ball, as you know, Harris and sometimes, because of the contentious nature of it, you’re right, he sees it as a plus.”
For anyone who’s stopped by NewsBusters during this pandemic (or tuned into the briefings), numerous White House reporters have embarrassed themselves on a daily basis with either mystifyingly clueless or horribly biased questions. Sadly, it’s doubtful the entire press corps would accept Baier’s sensible advice.
Before that, Baier noted that the media back-and-forth over Dr. Tony Fauci and Trump hasn’t been helpful and blaming him for the country’s current situation won’t fly because “the real blame is on China” as much of “the original data out of China led them astray as far as how contagious it was and how many cases there were.”
Baier also sounded off on the fixation (which has clearly been another liberal media obsession, though he wouldn’t admit to it) of Monday morning quarterback-ing the administration’s steps since even late 2019. Put simply, Baier blasted this as unhelpful considering the pandemic is still raging (click “expand”):
FAULKNER: [T]he other thing that’s happening today is this New York Times article and, you know, the President doing what he does. He’ll spar, he’ll fire back, and that's what he's doing today at The New York Times, saying -- this is over a report of him accusing him of ignoring his advisors’ warnings about COVID-19, and moving too slowly on opposing those social distancing guidelines. However, the President tweeted The New York Times story “is…fake, just like the ‘paper’ itself. I was criticized for moving too fast when they should the China Ban, long before most others wanted to do so." And Bret, he brought that up as an example of one of the steps he took. Again, you know, witnessing another public fight and I just toss to you and almost want to ask, what do people --- what are they supposed to make of it?
BAIER: Well, it's just a lot of back-and-forth an it’ll continue. There is criticism to go around. Clearly the administration at some points could have done different things. Clearly there's going to be this, at the end of this, a look back. But I think the majority of sentiment across the country as we are in the middle of us. Let's get through it. Let's help small businesses and companies survive this. Let's make sure, as few people as possible die because of this and get to the other side and then do the look back. And obviously, the President has always been a counterpuncher and he’s going to continue to be.
To see the relevant transcript from FNC’s Outnumbered Overtime on April 13, click “expand.”
FNC’s Outnumbered Overtime
April 13, 2020
1:02 p.m. EasternHARRIS FAULKNER: There are kind of two headlines that are working out there, Bret and I want to hit this first one with Dr. Fauci said. We talked about last hour on "Outnumbered and the comment I made was, you know, how much of this is really helpful? And of course, that's also a question.
BRET BAIER: No. None, really, in the big picture and two, we've seen this story about, you know, President Trump doesn't like Fauci, Fauci is criticizing President Trump. It goes up and down and up and down and you look at the whole context of that sound bite, Fauci has asked a hypothetical. "What if?"
FAULKNER: Yeah.
BAIER: If the U.S. had done a complete lockdown. Well, the problem was that we, to your point, didn't have that information. Fauci not himself come at the end of January, said the rest of the U.S. citizens was very low, in interviews and the real blame --- and there's a lot of stories about the blame to go around --- the real blame is on China. Something else Fauci said this weekend, that the original data out of China led them astray as far as how contagious it was and how many cases there were.
FAULKNER: Yeah, it’s so important. I think that is very informative to tell people, too. It wasn't just the lack of detail or information coming from other countries dealing with this early on, the first of which was China. But it was also misinformation that we now know from even our own intelligence community.
BAIER: Right and, you know, that falls, again, right on China as far as what was coming out. Now, the tic-toc about happened when with the administration, you know, is --- is illuminating in some points and clearly other things could have happened, but when the President shut down the travel from China, he rightly points out, often, that he was criticized for doing that. That bought a lot of time as far as having to deal with this --- this virus There's a lot of things you don't know about the original point in Wuhan. I think there's a lot of things that we don't know is why Shanghai and Beijing did not get as much of this fallout as Milan or New York City and I think we have a lot of investigating to do.
FAULKNER: Yeah. We do and as journalists, of course, we’ll do that. You know what? I do want to hit this one thing. The new Yorker is featuring Dr. Fauci in an article this month, calling him "America's doctor." You know, people from all walks, all, you know, political stripes, have said that you need somebody to lead. This is the man they have said that they trust. Is it damaging that the President tweets something that has a #FireFauci in it? Or do people just kind of calculate, Bret, as okay, that’s just more stuff on Twitter?
BAIER: I think the President does a lot of those things, that have even his supporters scratching their heads. I'm sure he'll be asked about retweeting something that says #FireFauci at the task force briefing today. I'm sure he's going to be pressed on that and I'm sure the answer is going to be, "I respect this, I respect him. I'm going to use the data from Fauci and Birx to make my decision about opening the country." I think the President’s inclination is always to defend, because he spent three years under attack, in his mind, from all corners. That retweet is more about, "Hey, he said it, too at the end of January, Right after that, I closed down travel from China."
FAULKNER: Yeah. You know, the other thing that’s happening today is this New York Times article and, you know, the President doing what he does. He’ll spar, he’ll fire back, and that's what he's doing today at The New York Times, saying -- this is over a report of him accusing him of ignoring his advisors’ warnings about COVID-19, and moving too slowly on opposing those social distancing guidelines. However, the President tweeted The New York Times story “is…fake, just like the ‘paper’ itself. I was criticized for moving too fast when they should the China Ban, long before most others wanted to do so." And Bret, he brought that up as an example of one of the steps he took. Again, you know, witnessing another public fight and I just toss to you and almost want to ask, what do people --- what are they supposed to make of it?
BAIER: Well, it's just a lot of back-and-forth an it’ll continue. There is criticism to go around. Clearly the administration at some points could have done different things. Clearly there's going to be this, at the end of this, a look back. But I think the majority of sentiment across the country as we are in the middle of us. Let's get through it. Let's help small businesses and companies survive this. Let's make sure, as few people as possible die because of this and get to the other side and then do the look back. And obviously, the President has always been a counterpuncher and he’s going to continue to be.
FAULKNER: So, you know what? You brought up an interesting point, though because he does defend, he does counter punch. I ask --- and I wanted to ask you this for a long time, so I'm just going to put it out there. When we watch those news conferences in the afternoons and we see people who are journalists like you and I are, Bret, asking the same questions, kind of over and over, and having those moments of contention, have we moved to a point now where maybe that only works for the President?
BAIER: Clearly, he thinks it works, because he thinks that sparring is good to shore up his supporters. I think that, as a journalist sitting there, you want to advance the ball on substance, not get in a fight with the President of the United States.
FAULKNER: Yes.
BAIER: That doesn't mean you don't ask pointed questions, but ask them in a way you try to advance the ball. as you know, Harris. And sometimes, because of the contentious nature of it, you’re right, he sees it as a plus. A lot of people look at those things and say, "This is too long. He could have done it in half the time." And I'm not saying that because it happens in my hour all the time. I’m say just because his supporters and others say it, "you know, he could have done the same thing in half the time."
FAULKNER: I was just curious. I know that you're there, you are anchoring those moments right after, right before. Oftentimes the President is there. We are all watching those reporters together, and have lived in those shoes similarly in some cases.
(….)
1:10 p.m. Eastern
FAULKNER: I love having the nitty-gritty conversations with you, particularly about journalism.
