Fox News Scumbag Of The Week: Howard Kurtz, Trump Fluffer

In a week that’s seen various Fox News personnel take inane and/or offensive positions on everything from the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality (being the cause of floods in the capital) to the Charleston church massacre (being an attack on Christianity), a late entry to the contest sneaked in Friday just before the deadline to win the Fox News Scumbag Of The Week Award:

Fox News Howard Kurtz

On Friday’s broadcast of Special Report (video below), Howard Kurtz was introduced for a segment on how the press treats poor Donald Trump. Rather than report on the ever-expanding backlash to Trump’s racist assault on immigrants, Kurtz took the opportunity to slam the media for doing their job. He simultaneously attempted to run interference for the Republican Party to cleanse it of any stray excrement emanating from The Donald.

Kurtz: The media are trying to turn the Trump problem into the Republican problem. […] Why should Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and the others, have to answer for the billionaire businessman who is hardly an establishment Republican?

What a bunch of unadulterated hogwash. The Republican Party doesn’t need any help from the media to turn Trump’s boorish vulgarity into their own problem. They invited him into their party with open arms. In 2008 Mitt Romney solicited and received Trump’s endorsement. Fox News, the GOP’s PR division, made him a weekly feature on Fox & Friends, as well a frequent guest on other programs. And every time he lashed out at President Obama with his signature classlessness, Republicans cheered and praised him.

The reason other Republicans are expected to respond to Trump’s assholiness is because Trump represents a broad swath of the establishment Republican ideology. He is anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-ObamaCare, anti-gay, anti-environment, and pro-war. Where does Kurtz get the idea that Trump isn’t in line with the GOP regulars? As evidence of his harmony with conservative voters, they have boosted him to the top tier in Republican primary polls after he made his repulsive remarks about immigrants. Only now, since Trump’s misfire has ricocheted back at them, are some trying to put some distance between themselves and his hate mongering.

But what really clinched the Scumbag prize for Kurtz is a wildly off-base comparison between how the media has treated Trump and how they treated a Democrat from the past with regard to whether Trump is hurting Republicans.

Kurtz: Is there a double standard here? The press didn’t say that John Edwards, for instance, hurt the Democratic brand by fathering an out-of-wedlock child.

WTF? It must have taken a Herculean effort for Kurtz to come up with the most reprehensibly inappropriate stab at false equivalency imaginable. First of all, unlike today’s Republicans, Democrats universally repudiated Edwards for his vile infidelity. The reason the Republican brand is hurting is because Trump’s comments are so closely aligned to the party’s platform. That simply wasn’t true with regard to Edwards. In fact, Edwards misbehavior was entirely personal, so it could not have reflected on the reputation of a political party. Trump’s transgressions, on the other hand, are purely political. And even now he is being defended by folks like Ann Coulter and Ted Cruz.

Even from an opportunistic journalistic perspective, the two scenarios are not remotely similar. Trump’s comments came during the heat of a presidential primary battle when candidates are expected to participate in open debate. However, the first reports of Edwards infidelity were published in October of 2007 by the National Enquirer, a tabloid rag with a reputation for sensationalist garbage that usually proved to be untrue. The story was justifiably dismissed considering the source.

It wasn’t until July of 2008 that Edwards was caught visiting his mistress at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. However, by that time Edwards was not a candidate. He had dropped out of the race six months earlier. In fact, there was no race because Hillary Clinton had also conceded in June of 2008 and endorsed Obama. Consequently, there was no reason for the media cover Edwards as anything but a salacious human interest story. His troubles had absolutely nothing to do with the election or the Democratic Party.

Let’s face it – Kurtz only brought this up because A) He had no other example of a Democrat who is as repugnant as Trump and as adept at harming the interests of his party, and B) He desperately wanted to stigmatize Democrats with an ancient and unrelated memory to counteract the well-deserved bad publicity that Republicans are suffering. And for that purposefully manufactured slander, Kurtz easily walks away with the Scumbag Of The Week Award. Congratulations.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

p.s. Kurtz is interviewing Trump tomorrow on his Fox News program, MediaBuzz. Tune in if you have the stomach for it. As they say, “The circle jerk will be televised.”


19 thoughts on “Fox News Scumbag Of The Week: Howard Kurtz, Trump Fluffer

  1. Howard Kurtz is not a scumbag. He has more honor and integrity than you will ever possess. The hatred and the filth of your blog simply has no end. What a disgraceful waste of electricity this site continues to be.

    • Let’s not forget the following: Mitt Romney was excoriated when his response to Rush Limbaugh’s Sandra-Fluke-is-a-slut comment was seen as wishy-washy. But remember Barack Obama’s response to the fact that hate-spewing “comedian” Bill Maher donated $1 million to a pro-Obama superPAC? That’s right, there was no response from him. Obama ignored the question. And Democratic lawmakers like Sheila Jackson Lee literally ran away from journalists who asked why they had not condemned Maher’s hate speech.

      • What “hate speech” is Bill Maher guilty of? You should go lay down awhile, Scott, you must’ve taxed yer brain to the breaking point in trying to create a false equivalency between Maher (a comedian who probably isn’t even a registered Democrat) and Limbaugh (hate-radio pioneer and unofficial spokesman for the GOP). As for Howard Kurtz, well, “scumbag” about sums it it up.

        • Bill Maher has used the c-word and the t-word to describe Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. He has “joked” about Glen Beck being shot dead by police, “joked” about America trading Elisabeth Hasselback for Lara Logan (which implied that Ms. Hasselback would be gang-raped by an Egyptian mob), and he was not joking when he spewed twice that the world would have been better off if Vice President had been assassinated in Afghanistan back in 2006. Bill Maher spews hate, and nothing but hate.
          Calling him “just a comedian” is 100% dishonest. His $1 million donation to Priorities USA made him a major political player. That is undeniable. Maher has also performed at Democratic fundraisers.
          The truth will be stated again: Howard Kurtz is not a scumbag.

          • Heh heh, that Bill Maher is funny guy.
            Wish we could get him to do some Green Party fundraisers.

          • So, let’s see, Scott. You defend your point by concentrating on attacking the other guy. Bill-O’s better at that policy than you are. You’ve proved nothing. It doesn’t matter what Bill Maher says (and I have not liked Maher since Politically Incorrect went off the air — and I watched that show solely because of the panel). It has nothing do with what Kurtz said.

            And, don’t anyone forget that Maher also defended Limbaugh when Lord Rush attacked Sandra Fluke. One misogynist supporting another. So, is Maher a scumbag? I’d consider him one.

            Kurtz, on the other hand was one of Fox’s biggest critics — before being hired by them. Now, he’s their biggest defender, to the point that he will attack anyone who held his own position before becoming a FoxPod — and since Fox had adopted Trump as the best candidate of a collection of morons, he will make any dumb comment that supports Trump, even if he has to create a false equivalency, as Mark clearly notes. It is clear that Kurtz will say anything that pleases his bosses of the moment. So, that makes Kurtz a scumbag.

            So, Scott, I await your argument (which won’t come) or your attack (which probably will).

            • “I await your argument (which won’t come)..”
              You’re wrong as usual. This will be easy to do
              “Kurtz was one of Fox’s biggest critics…”
              Wrong AGAIN. I watched “Reliable Sources” when Kurtz was there. He sometimes criticized FNC and defended it on other occasions. Kurtz was always fair and honorable either at CNN or Fox.
              Glad to see that you’re willing to criticize both Maher and Limbaugh. You’re being consistent – which is something Mark knows nothing about. Neither do most left-wingers.

          • what’s the T-word?
            those whackjob tools of the koch brothers called THEMSELVES that.

          • A Comedian is not a ‘journalist’.
            Case closed.

          • Maher’s comment about trading Hasselbeck was made a week before there were reports of the (terrible) abuse of Ms Logan. The rest of your wittering is just as inaccurate.

    • Kurtz is another Fox Whore. Just like you.

      • Lie. And as usual, Mark does not have the decency to delete a commenter who chooses such a sickening avatar.

      • Wrong. Telling the truth does not victimize me in the slightest.

    • OK. YOU are equatable to the scumbag Kurtz. I hate pseudo conservative Rabid Right Wingers.
      You people are GENETIC DEFECTIVES.
      Your brains do not function properly.
      You are sociopaths.
      You are Stream-Of-Consciousness IDIOTS. Like TrumpTheChump Inc.
      Provable HYPOCRITES. LIARS.
      Dwellers of your own EGO inside your SKULLS. Neanderthals.
      Lacking any EMPATHY, unable to FEEL anything but hate.
      Go away.

  2. Wrong AGAIN. I watched “Reliable Sources” when Kurtz was there. He sometimes criticized FNC and defended it on other occasions. Kurtz was always fair and honorable either at CNN or Fox.

    Okay, accepted. I still question whether we can say he is “fair and honorable” at Fox, which is what Mark is arguing here. It is out of character for FoxPods to be either, as people like Bill O’Reilly and Limbaugh constantly prove. And Trump continues to prove he doesn’t deserve the defense he is receiving.

    But I appreciate the reasoned commentary. We don’t usually get that from some of you FoxPods. Most of you honor the Bill O’Reilly policy of attack, attack, attack. Which, frankly, gets a little old…

      • I recognize BS in my sleep, & Kurtz is full of it.
        A man either HAS integrity, or he doesn’t.
        Rightwingers consider that a ‘grey-area’.

Comments are closed.