Fox News ends interview after Thomas Ricks criticizes network

Fox News ends interview with Thomas Ricks after he criticizes Fox coverage of the Benghazi controversy. Watch the video to see if Fox News ends the interview abruptly or not.

A Fox News Channel interview ended abruptly Monday after an author accused the network of hyping the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and "operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

The charges were made by Thomas Ricks, a veteran newspaper reporter and author of "The Generals," who was brought on for an interview with anchor Jon Scott about Republican criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's comments about the attacks.

Ricks said he thought the story of the Benghazi attacks was "hyped, by this network especially."

RECOMMENDED: Are you smarter than a FOX News viewer? Take the quiz

Scott asked why Ricks would call it hype when four Americans were killed, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years.

Ricks responded that few people knew how many U.S. security contractors were killed in Iraq and compared that to the attention paid to "what was essentially a small firefight" in Libya.

"I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party," Ricks said.

With that, Scott thanked him and turned to a co-anchor, who introduced a commercial.

Ricks told The New York Times that after the interview, a Fox News staffer told him that he had been rude. Ricks said in an e-mail message afterward that he did not think he was being rude. “I thought I was being honest,” he said. “They asked my opinion, and I gave it.”

"When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor's question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself and his book," Fox News executive Michael Clemente said in an e-mail to The Hollywood Reporter. "He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly."

Ricks responded with an email to The Hollywood Reporter: "Please ask Mr. Clemente what the words of my supposed apology were. I'd be interested to know," he said. "Frankly, I don't remember any such apology."

RECOMMENDED: Are you smarter than a FOX News viewer? Take the quiz

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.