CNN’s Brian Stelter joined me on the radio show this morning to discuss his new book “Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth”:

Audio:

09-28hhs-stelter

Transcript:

HH: Joined now by Brian Stelter of CNN fame. He is the author of the brand-new book Hoax. Brian, you are at the top of the Hugh Hewitt book pile. Good morning and welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

BS: Good morning. I’m glad to be on the pile at all. Thank you.

HH: Well, these are the last 12 books I’ve done. I actually put it there, because I do authors frequently. And you’re pretty mean to talk radio in Hoax. I just wanted to point out to you some of us read books and interview authors. And you ought to at least give us a shoutout in Hoax occasionally for doing the work of the Lord.

BS: Well, I think you’re suggesting I need to, there’s, I should do an entirely new book. Maybe the next book should be all about talk radio.

HH: I think that would be a great choice.

BS: What’s the story of talk radio?

HH: Brian, let me begin by telling people, I’ve got to do all my disclosures. Brian Stelter is an acquaintance and a friend from CNN. We shared a ride on the Acela once. I don’t think I’ve ever been on your show, but I’ve done so many hits over my many years in broadcast, I don’t recall. But I want to do these disclosures. Sean Hannity is a friend of mine. Not a close friend, not a go to lunch friend, but a buddy. I see him around. Mark Levin is an old and dear friend of mine, a go to lunch buddy. I was at Justice with him a long time ago. But lots of people at CNN are my friends. You know, Jeff Zucker is a friend. He’s a big brain. Andy Lack is a friend. He’s a big brain. I don’t know any Fox execs at all. And I never met Roger Ailes. I just want to get all my disclosures out of the way. I’ve got friends in the GOP Senate. My son works for the Trump administration. I’ve got Senate Democratic friends. Do any of that matter when you sit down with someone to do a talk about your book?

BS: Maybe on the margins, but I feel like everybody has connections in different ways. And you know, when I’m interviewing sources for my book, lots of people have lots of different, really interesting relationships, right? Like for example, Anthony Scaramucci, Sean Hannity, turns out they’re pretty close friends. They’ve had to put that friendship aside for a little while, but you know, there are some amazing, interesting, complicated relationships in the media world. And I think you’re right, Hugh. As long as everybody knows about them, as long as we talk about that openly, then it all works.

HH: The funniest line in Hoax is about the Mooch, by the way.

BS: Oh, what is…

HH: I’m going to recall this from memory. He was brought in to fix the leaks, which he tried mostly to do by yelling at the pipes. Is that a…

BS: Thank you for actually reading the book.

HH: Oh, I’ve read the book. I always read the book.

BS: But I assume that you disagree with every chapter.

HH: No, in fact, I’ll tell you that at the beginning, what I agree with the most, I think the most valuable part of Hoax is that behind every programming decision, there is a larger business decision. The Murdoch’s decisions on O’Reilly and on everything was driven by the acquisition of Sky News and later by the Disney deal. And I think Hoax brings this, I didn’t know that, Brian. I didn’t know about the dynamics of the Murdoch family. I really don’t care about that kind of stuff, but that’s in Hoax, right? That…

BS: Yeah, look, I think the Bill O’Reilly example is really interesting. Bill O’Reilly had to have these secret settlements with women who had accused him of misconduct. He has always said he’s innocent. And these stories came out in the New York Times. Hey, look, the New York Times with a big bombshell story, and the Murdochs were just tired of all the bad press. They were tired of all the headlines about Fox and misconduct, and so they cut him loose. And I do think it had a lot to do with the Sky deal. They were trying to buy this giant broadcaster in Great Britain. And the British regulators were starting to look at the O’Reilly story very skeptically. So you’re right. There’s always these different chess pieces. And sometimes, if you’re a star or a, you know, a commentator on a network, you don’t know that you’re part of a larger chess game.

HH: And we’re going to come back to that. I think that is the overriding takeaway is that behind every programming decision is actually a corporation looking after the best interests of its shareholders and its CEO, and perhaps the head of programming. Let me ask you, though, my very first question has nothing to do with the media. You drop a detail into the book which I found fascinating. You lost your father at a young age when he was coaching your brother’s Little League team. How old were you, Brian?

BS: Yeah, I was 15 years old. It was 2001. It was a week after George W. Bush’s inauguration. So I always hold onto the fact that he brought me to D.C. for the inauguration, because that was my last memory with him.

HH: Well, I’ve got to tell you, I want to give a shoutout to Mrs. Stelter, because I think she allowed you to work through your grief by indulging your TV news habit and running up ridiculous bills in the days of dialup. Is Mrs. Stelter still with us?

BS: You’re absolutely right. My mom is still with us, and you’re right about that. And I, it’s funny to hear you say that, Hugh, because I’ve been, my dad’s been, hasn’t been alive, passed away so long ago now I haven’t had him for almost 20 years. But I look back and I think everything in my life traces back to his death, because you know, you know, the school took care of me. My mom held me close, allowed me to indulge my passions and get online and start making these websites. It is interesting how you can sometimes…

HH: Oh, we’re breaking up on the feed there, Brian. Have you got terrible…there we are. It’s interesting, go ahead. You’re back.

BS: No, you know, I was saying I can call back on my phone. It is just amazing how everything in your life can be traced back to an event like that, you know, to a shocking, awful event. But you try to figure out what the silver lining is. And for me, the silver lining was everything in my life started from that moment, you know?

HH: And I think that is, it’s a kind of a dropped in intro to Brian Stelter. I want my audience to know that.

BS: Thank you.

HH: Now, I’ve got to ask the question. My audience needs to know. Do you have in your contract a non-disparagement clause? Because I don’t want to ask you to criticize or comment on CNN if you’re going to violate your contract by doing so.

BS: I think I criticize CNN and comment on CNN all the time. So…

HH: Okay, great. Great.

BS: Let’s go for it. What do you got?

HH: Let’s go for it. Well, I think Hoax is one half of one-third of a book that needs to be written about cable news, meaning it’s the bad half of Fox, not the good half of Fox, and MSNBC and CNN are not in it hardly at all.

BS: Right.

HH: But that if someone writes The Powers That Be, Halberstam’s famous book about the networks and the big media from three decades ago, they have to cover all three networks. You made a choice not to cover my network, MSNBC, or your network, CNN. Why is that?

BS: I think the story of Fox is a very different story. I think the story of Fox and Trump is an isolated, separate story. It’s really less about television and more about the President being informed or misinformed by this media outlet. I agree with you, though, that somebody could do a cable news wars book. I just think that’s a different story than the Trump-Fox story.

HH: Okay, but there’s a lot of the good side of Fox, which you do mention, but you kind of skip away from. Let’s start with the very best. I think the best in cable news is Bret Baier doing Special Report. I think after that is Chuck Todd doing Meet the Press Daily, and after that, I think Jake Tapper doing The Lead. I don’t watch nighttime opinion shows. But do you agree or disagree that the opinion shows on CNN are just like the opinion shows on Fox?

BS: Of course, they’re not like the opinion shows on Fox. And if you watch the opinion shows, first of all, you need to watch prime time on Fox. It is poisonous. It is extremist rhetoric. And that’s why we should pay attention to it. It’s important to know what four, five, six million people are hearing every night, because it’s so extreme and so radical anti-Democrat, anti-Biden. That is not the same as what CNN or MSNBC is doing. It’s just not. Here’s my favorite example, Hugh. MSNBC, Rachel Maddow at 9pm, she’s always saying buy a local newspaper, support local news, support a healthy media ecosystem. Sean Hannity says journalism is dead. He tells you not to trust anything else. I think there’s just a gigantic difference between what Fox is doing in prime time and the other networks.

HH: Let me queue up for you, I’m not going to go through thousands of clips with you on CNN where I can disagree, but I’m going to play you Don Lemon from last week. Here’s Don.

CC: …Everybody’s fixed routine.

DL: We’re going to have to blow up the entire system. And you know what we’re going to have to do?

CC: I don’t know about that.

DL: You know what we’re…yes.

CC: Yeah.

DL: …we have to do?

CC: You’ve just go to vote.

DL: Honestly, from what your closing argument is, you’re going to have to get rid of the Electoral College, because the people…

CC: I don’t see it.

DL: Because the minority in this country decides who the judges are, and they decide who the president is. Is that fair?

CC: But you need a Constitutional amendment to do that.

DL: And if Democrats, if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts, and they can do that amendment, and they can get it passed.

HH: Brian Stelter, blow up the whole system, stack the courts, amend the Constitution. That’s radical. That’s Don.

BS: That’s one person’s view of a situation. Why is that, why do you think that’s a big, why isn’t that shocking or surprising?

HH: Because Don’s a, do you think Don is an opinion host or a news host?

BS: Don Lemon is a news anchor who has a point of view and talks about his point of view, because sometimes, the best way to get through the news and all the noise is to explain what’s happening in our own words.

HH: How can you contrast Don and Sean and say they’re any different? Don’s just a lefty, and Sean’s a righty. That’s all.

BS: Well again, here’s another example. Laura Ingraham was at the White House on Saturday hanging out during the Supreme Court announcement. Obviously, that’s her right. She used to be a clerk on the Supreme Court. She has an opinion show on Fox. But you would never see Don Lemon hanging out at the White House for a Supreme Court announcement. Listen, if that happens someday, I’ll come back on and eat my words, but that’s just not going to happen. CNN is a different beast than Fox News.

HH: Now Brian, I really don’t care who goes to the White House. I’ve never been invited to a President Trump event, so I wouldn’t know. But Laura is a Supreme Court clerk and may know Judge Barrett. May. I don’t know what year she was there. It’s roughly the same time frame. But I don’t know that that matters. I’m making the argument that I hear a lot of left-wing clips from CNN and MSNBC, my own network, right? My own network…

BS: Wait, you should watch the channel. Don’t watch the channel on Twitter. Watch the channel.

HH: No, I watch MSNBC when I do debate prep, when I have to do the debate show tomorrow night.

BS: Sure.

HH: MSNBC is Fox is CNN, my premise is it’s all the same. None of it, by the way, is news. None of it is news. It’s all infotainment.

BS: There are a lot of reasons why they’re not, first of all, it’s offensive and really nasty to say it’s not news. There are hard-working journalists at CNN and MSNBC, and at Fox, so I hope you’ll take that back. Of course, it’s news. Of course, it’s news.

HH: Brian, we have a disagreement. It’s infotainment. News is this show talking to you…

BS: What does that mean? There are people that are killing themselves out there trying so hard to get to what the news is, what the truth is. And sometimes, they go out to hurricanes and war zones.

HH: Wait, wait, wait. We’re talking about different things. We’re talking about prime time. I’m not talking about journalists who are working.

BS: There’s a lot of news in prime time. There’s a lot of news in prime time. This is the problem with watching cable news via social media. You know, look at what Rachel Maddow does interviewing people for 20, 30 minutes. That’s news.

HH: Does she interview anyone that is of a similar intellect, she’s a Rhodes scholar, obviously, have you ever seen her interview anyone of a similar intellect of an opposite point of view, Brian?

BS: I can’t think of a recent example, no. But I think that will be a good thing. I mean, I’m with you on the, you know, we need to have more of that. But I’m thinking to myself Tucker Carlson does interview newsmakers. That is a version of news.

HH: Well, again, this is definitional. But tell me who on CNN of your contributors is a Trump supporter.

BS: Rick Santorum was on last night, and he’ll be on again during the debates.

HH: Okay. Anybody else?

BS: Scott Jennings, I think, is going to be on tomorrow night as well. I’m just trying to think of who’s going to be on tomorrow night.

HH: All right, I don’t know who Scott Jennings is. I honestly don’t.

BS: Scott Jennings is another, well, then you should watch more CNN, Hugh.

HH: No, I just don’t think it’s news. I mean, I read the Trump tax article today, because Michael Shear will give me 4,000 words, and I can read a lot faster than I can watch. Let’s go back to Hoax, all right? Let’s go back to Hoax, because I don’t have any animus to anyone. Everybody, it’s like to me, it’s all players on the same team. It’s like professional sports. It’s like baseball. It’s a business.

BS: Right, but when you say that, when you say that, when you blur it all together, that’s what creates this sense of well, everybody’s bad, everybody does it. I don’t think that’s true.

HH: Not everybody is bad. Everybody’s in a business, Brian. Everybody’s trying to get ratings. You’re breaking up again.

BS: …obsession with CNN.

HH: There is a ratings obsession everywhere that I’ve been. I’ve contributed to Fox. I, of course, I worked alongside of CNN for Salem during four debates and a thousand hits in 2016. I work for NBC now. Isn’t everybody ratings obsessed?

BS: There’s, the ratings are important. No doubt. I’m not going to deny that ratings are not important. What I found from dozens and dozens of sources at Fox was that this obsession with ratings is so much more intense. But maybe that’s because they’ve been winning. They’ve been number one for 18 years. I don’t feel that same pressure personally as a CNN anchor the way that I was, I heard about it at Fox. That’s just my personal…

HH: Okay, I am not going to trash anyone at any network about obsession of ratings. I just think they’re all like…let me go to the bottom line, my problem with Hoax is that…

BS: Yeah.

HH: We know the end of some stories that you criticize Fox for their coverage of. We know the end of the Mueller report, right? There was no collusion, correct?

BS: You know, I’m not going to play a game about a word that is irrelevant to the question at hand. There’s still a lot we don’t know about the President’s ties with Russia, period.

HH: But Brian, that kind of asks, that begs the question. Your criticism in Hoax, a lot of is based in the coverage of the Mueller investigation and how they downplayed it and called it a Hoax. It turns out there was no collusion, and it turns out we know this week, you couldn’t have known it during writing of Hoax…

BS: Yeah.

HH: …that the primary sub-source of the Steele dossier is probably a Russian agent, correct?

BS: I think there’s a fantasyland that Fox promotes about what you’re describing, about the Steele dossier and all of that that distracts from the key questions about Trump’s ties with Russia. We now know from the New York Times hundreds of millions of dollars of loans. Who does the President owe money to? We need to know. We deserve to know that, Hugh.

HH: Brian, that’s a deflection. The primary sub-source of the dossier was revealed last week to be a Russian agent investigated by the Obama Department of Justice in 2009 and ’10. The dossier is discredited. There was no collusion. These are factual matters. That’s my problem with Hoax.

BS: I’m reflecting, I’m a media reporter, and I’m not a Steele dossier reporter. What I know is that when you use the word hoax over and over again the way the President has, it’s dangerous and poisonous, because it makes people think there’s nothing real and nothing true anymore. And that’s what I think the problem is.

HH: Will you at least agree with me that the primary sub-source of the dossier has been revealed to be a Russian agent?

BS: I literally do not know, because I’m a media reporter.

HH: Okay.

BS: I hate to disappoint you. I just, I don’t cover the dossier over the air…

HH: I think you skipped over Kavanaugh very quickly.

BS: Yeah.

HH: There is not one mention of Michael Avenatti in your book, Hoax. Is that intentional on your part?

BS: Why would I mention Michael Avenatti? He’s irrelevant.

HH: He was part of the people who slimed Justice Kavanaugh. And he, in fact, propagated a hoax that was repeated on many networks.

BS: My book is about Fox and Trump and why Trump is obsessed with Fox, and why he gets misinformation from Fox. And Avenatti wasn’t really on Fox much, was he?

HH: Yes, he was. Not much, not as much as CNN. He was on CNN a lot.

BS: Right. He’s an alum.

HH: Yeah, he was on, was he on your show?

BS: Of course, he was. But if the President was watching CNN more, if he was watching a higher quality content, he wouldn’t get misinformed less often and then he would, he would, that’s the crux of the problem. And that’s why they’re not all the same.

HH: But if he’d been watching your show during Kavanaugh, he would have heard Avenatti say about his nominee completely false things.

BS: I don’t think I booked Avenatti during Kavanaugh, and I don’t think that’s true. But the difference, here’s the thing. They’re not all the same. All news channels are not the same. If the President was watching PBS Newshour, or only watching Bret Baier’s show, he would be better informed. But instead, he watches these hardcore, far right talk shows that misinform him. That’s the crux of my argument.

HH: I do, I get your argument. In fact, let’s go to a part. You quote Donald Trump saying about the Special Counsel appointment it being the end of his presidency and I’m blanked, which I can’t say. It’s what Bill Maher said about Amy Coney Barrett.

BS: Yes, right.

HH: And then you say but he wasn’t blanked, because he, “had Hannity and the Fox base.”

BS: Yes.

HH: Now Brian, that’s kind of silly, isn’t it, because he wasn’t f’ed, because the Special Counsel spent endless amounts of money and thousands of millions of dollars and prosecutorial time, and found no collusion. That’s why it wasn’t the end of his presidency, not because of Fox News.

BS: The word collusion was never in the charging documents, so it’s an irrelevant conversation to talk about collusion. The Special Counsel found a lot of evidence. Thankfully, we finally, it took way too long. I wish we’d received that evidence a lot sooner. And now, there’s follow ups. And there’s all these books that people can read if they are still interested in the issue. Peter Strzok’s Compromised and all the rest.

HH: And Brian, Byron York’s Obsession, which is I think the best book on it. It’s in this stack of books.

BS: Yes, yes.

HH: My point being, though, it wasn’t Fox News that saved Donald Trump from the Special Counsel, because the Special Counsel could find nothing after two and a half years of endless efforts.

BS: Okay, that’s an interesting view. I think they found an extraordinary amount. And that is what it is.

HH: All right. So let’s go to fairness to you. I’ve got to say this very carefully. I’m not trying to trap you, but I’m trying to…

BS: Oh, but I love this. Yes.

HH: You said scrutiny makes people stronger, right?

BS: Absolutely.

HH: That’s Page 258. Scrutiny makes people stronger. So I was reading along about Roger Ailes, whom I never met, even though he’s from Warren, Ohio.

BS: Yeah.

HH: And you write, “Ailes was scheduled to meet with billionaire tech mogul and Trump backer Peter Thiel about a possible network venture in mid-May.” And then you go on to describe that Ailes fell over and ultimately died. Well, I know Peter, so I wrote him an email as I was reading the book yesterday, and I asked him is this true. And Peter wrote back, no, not at all. I met Ailes once somewhere around 2006, and I hadn’t spoken to him since. It’s kind of bewildering, he wrote back, how these kinds of fake stories get generated. I think this one somehow predated Stelter, but I’ve generally given up even trying to figure out exactly who gets things wrong and who exaggerates various connections. So you got something wrong. That’s not the end of the world. But does it change the way I should view the rest of Hoax?

BS: Well, you’re saying, you’re saying Peter Thiel’s saying it’s wrong? That’s different than it being wrong. There was a BuzzFeed story in January, 2018 titled Peter Thiel is exploring the creation of a conservative channel, possibly with Roger Ailes. Maybe Peter Thiel was not doing that, and I should have asked you for his email address, because I couldn’t find a way to contact him. But let me just ask you this, Hugh. If there’s a story out there for three years about you, and you don’t say anything, isn’t that strange? I’m not trying to blame Peter Thiel, but I think it’s weird that he would just let those stories go out there for years.

HH: You know, I disagree with that, because I don’t think you can chase everything, especially if you’re Thiel or you’re Brian Stelter or you’re Hewitt. You can’t chase everything. But I think Brian Stelter, who’s writing a book about what happens to Roger Ailes and when he dies that he’s waiting to start a conservative network because he’s bitter and in exile, ought to have found a way to ask Peter. And obviously, Peter’s pretty well plugged in. I got to him yesterday in one hour.

BS: Yeah, look, listen, right, Hugh. It looks like it originated with Michael Wolff in the book Fire and Fury. That was before the Buzzfeed story. It was Michael Wolff who said Ailes was about to meet with Thiel. What’s interesting about Michael Wolff is he was very close with Roger and Elizabeth, Roger’s widow. So presumably, it came from the Ailes side, not from the Thiel side. When I was going through this, I tried to find Thiel’s info to ask him and couldn’t, so I should have asked you, Hugh, to get his contact information. But I take your point. And there are two other mistakes that I know about in the hardcover that I’m going to change in the paperback. I got a date wrong, and I got a ratings figure wrong. So I’m glad to have…

HH: Oh, don’t worry. In my book on Mitt Romney, I started the Korea War two years wrong. So the very first page, I got the start of the Korea War, because fact checkers can’t check dates and names.

BS: Well, it’s funny, though. I was so relieved when I went through the book when it was finally printed, and I only found two of the mistakes that I know about, because when you write a 300 page book, you’re reading it dreading what you’re going to find in the final version. But to answer your question, no. Finding errors actually makes people, should make people more confident in the entirety of something, because it shows that there’s an accountability and a transparent, like, you know, when we’re talking about it, I think it shows an openness. Okay, then let’s go figure out what went wrong.

HH: Okay, that’s a good argument. That’s a good argument.

BS: But in terms of more broadly, I think when journalists make corrections or make admissions, I think that strengthens journalism.

HH: Let’s talk a little bit about your coverage of Fox’s coverage of the pandemic, which is not excellent, but no network and no broadcaster except yours truly got it right. I covered the virus in December and January endlessly. I got Robert O’Brien on this show in January to say it was deadly and dangerous. No one would listen to me. How can you single out Fox when everybody missed a story that I, just a little humble radio host with 300 affiliates, was telling everybody every day was going to kill millions of people? That’s an exaggeration.

BS: I say in the book that there’s a lot of responsibility, a lot of blame to go around, mayors and governors, etc. But Fox has the biggest platform, so it should be scrutinized. Fox has the biggest audience on cable, and has a direct line to the President. The President’s misinformed by the network all the time. So it deserves attention. I hear from Fox fans who say why do you cover Fox. Well, it’s bigger than a network. It’s the most important media company in the country, and I would argue it’s more than a media company, Hugh. I would argue it’s like right next to the GOP as its own institution in American life.

HH: But you know, the President calls my network an arm of the DNC. He calls your network fake news.

BS: Well, that…but you should be so, you should be pissed about that, Hugh.

HH: I’m not. It’s just entertainment. I think it’s all entertainment. Look, I’m just, I’ve been in this business for 30 years.

BS: …

HH: I’ve been doing this 30 years. It’s all entertainment. Everybody is the same. Brian, you need ratings. I need ratings. We’ve got to sell soap. We’re all the same, except for the journalists on the front line like John Fisher Burns.

BS: That’s what I think about. I hope you don’t think about that, Hugh. That’s not what I wake up thinking about. I think about I have an hour on TV. How am I going to use it really well and get as much information as I can. I am not thinking about the ratings.

HH: But I want you to think about what I try and do. But I get three hours a day, 15 hours a week, is bring everybody’s point of view, and bring every fact that matters.

BS: Yeah.

HH: So you should know that the primary sub-source of the dossier is a Russian agent. And the fact that you don’t is why people don’t trust CNN, because they don’t know that you guys ever look on the other side of a story.

BS: I read as much as I can, but there are much bigger priorities in this country right now, frankly, than a four year old dossier.

HH: Oh, Brian.

BS: I understand that it’s part of the right-wing fantasyland, but it’s not the biggest story in the world.

HH: No, no. Brian, Brian, hear me on this. Really, do hear me.

BS: Yeah.

HH: I spent six years in the Department of Justice, the White House Counsel’s Office, got confirmed by the Senate. The idea that a handful of FBI and other people perhaps in the intelligence community were trying to take down a president using an illegal attack upon his election is perhaps the most scandalous effort I’ve ever seen to undermine a president in the beginning of his presidency ever in American history. And you’re not interested in that?

BS: I’m interested in the overall subject, but I’m also interested in, I mean, look, the Comey Rule is on Showtime last night and tomorrow. I haven’t watched it. I’m behind on a bunch of things. But that paints a very different picture than what you said, right? That paints a picture of an FBI terrified that the president was possibly compromised by Russia. And you don’t seem to have your door open to that possibility.

HH: Oh, I’ve read everything. And I happen to believe quite firmly Jim Comey was out of his mind. I’ve read everything. You know, I read it all. I want to give you the last moment. Yesterday, you said this on Fox, I mean, on CNN.

BS: Yeah.

HH: I want to play the Brian audio from yesterday….Duane, you got it, the Brian audio about Chris Wallace?

BS: I know what I said. I know what I said.

HH: You know what you said. You said he was tainted by Fox.

BS: I said that he’s a respected journalist, but does he have the Fox taint on him.

HH: Yeah, now Brian, I looked it up. The first time I could find the word Fox taint was a Jennifer Rubin column. I’ve never seen it used before except in Hoax. I think it’s really a terrible thing to say about all those hard-working journalists, especially the ones who go into war zones. I don’t believe there’s a Fox taint on Chris Wallace. Do you really believe there is?

BS: I didn’t say there was. I asked my guests if there was, and all of my guests defended Chris Wallace. I do think there’s a lot of liberals in this country who look at it and say why is a Fox guy have a debate? But I think he is the right Fox guy to have a debate. And you know, I was asking one of his friends over the weekend, I said is this a Fox debate? They said no, it’s a Chris Wallace debate. That’s a big difference.

HH: Well…

BS: And I think we’re going to see that tomorrow night.

HH: But let’s stay on this Fox taint. I know Byron York. I know Guy Benson. I went to Guy Benson’s wedding with Megyn Kelly sitting across from me. I know these people. They have no taint on them. They’re great journalists. There is no such thing as a Fox taint. It’s…

BS: There absolutely is on some people. You know, a lot of friendships have been ruined in the Trump era. People that used to be friends with Bret Baier…

HH: Oh, that’s true.

BS: …don’t talk to him now. Don’t talk to him now. They think he’s complicit in a propaganda machine.

HH: Do you believe that? Bret is the best journalist on TV. Bret is the best anchor on TV. Do you agree with me on that?

BS: Bret Baier is a solid news anchor, but his show also leans to the right, and it’s symbolic of how all the shows on Fox have become Trumpier over time. I know that some people might disagree with me, but I make the case in Hoax.

HH: You do, and Hoax is a must-read. You’ve got to go. It’s 9:00. It’s a hard out. Come back, Brian Stelter. It’s good to talk to you.

BS: You, too. Thank you very much.

End of interview.