Fox News Channel Videos

Louis Menand on the Fox News flap.

The women disagree about his decision not to appear on the cable news channel.

Steve Marsh takes his dad behind the scenes at Fox News Channel's base of operations outside the Xcel Energy Center and talks with anchor Bill Hemmer about politics and religion.

So Glenn Beck has agreed to write books for children and teenagers. We almost missed that when reading about the Fox Newser's book deal today. We almost weren't terrified. Beck was already a popular author before his Fox gig boosted his fame, having published two nonfiction books and a novel, all with Simon & Schuster, and all bestsellers, topping out at 775,000 copies for the fiction, The Christmas Sweater. The ascendant shouting head's new "multi-book" deal must be worth a bundle. No one has yet affixed a price tag to it, but the Wall Street Journal notes Beck is accepting a lower advance in exchange for a full 15 percent royalty on hardcovers and 7-10 percent on paperbacks. The evening anchor will somehow find time to write three new titles this year, including audio- and e-books, most of them predictably radical-right-wing titles like America’s March to Socialism. But Beck, not known for his emotional stability, will also be reaching out to children. In the fall comes his "picture book" for children (based on Sweater), followed at some point by "young adult" literature, aka stories for teens.Between the books, the Fox show and his next comedy tour (sure to be huge with your religious-right college kids), Beck is building a collection of media designed to take conservatives from cradle to grave. He should hope his benefactors at News Corporation don't get too jealous.

Like Rudolph Giuliani, the news crawl was great on 9/11 but was soon useless and despised. Now CNN is killing it, and hopefully Fox News will too, if the Simpsons mock them again. Supposedly the cable news network threatened to sue (UPDATE: not really) its News Corporation siblings at the Simpsons in 2003 over the clip above, in which Fox News' already-infamous "crawl" is mocked, depicted running headlines like "Rupert Murdoch: Terrific Dancer," and "Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay." CNN's ticker might have been less politically controversial, but it still irritated many viewers to no end, including Lewis Black, who famously demanded the ticker be removed from underneath him during a CNN interview two and a half years ago (video of that is also in the clip above). After rolling it out on 9/11, 22 minutes after Fox, CNN is retiring the crawl to give its screen "a less cluttered look," reports the Times. Instead there will be something even more freakish-sounding at the bottom of the screen: a "flipper," which will be a line of text, usually related to whatever's on the screen. The text might "flip" over to show new information, but in a way CNN claims "doesn't give viewers a headache." CNN: Always striving to patronize viewers a little bit less than the competition.

Back in 1996, cable news was still innocent, and even an evil Republican genius like Roger Ailes had to make a pretense of political objectivity. So Fox News Channel was careful to seek a token "Liberal To Be Determined" to balance Sean Hannity when the conservative pundit helped anchor the network's debut. These days CNN, MSNBC and Fox all carry unabashedly slanted shows on their lineups, so Fox apparently feels no compunction about giving Hannity formal title to the show he's always had his way with: The host will go it alone following co-host Alan Colmes' previously-announced departure, two sources told the Times. Presumably Hannity fill the extra airtime shouting at invited guests and interviewing more Jew-fearing sources for his "investigations" into Barack Obama and other secret Muslims. Though the idea of left-right balanced opinion shows has become passe (thanks in part to Jon Stewart's reaming of Crossfire), Fox News might have been better off going the other way. It can be fun to watch Hannity take it on the chin, as happened all too rarely on Hannity and Colmes. One exception was the clip above, in which Colmes slams Hannity over his double standard on marital affairs; below, Obama aide Robert Gibbs hounds Hannity over an anti-Semitic source.

Shep Smith's on-air response to an email flame broke several rules for fighting effectively on the internet: Don't give attention to a troll; don't let your opponent know when he's gotten under your skin; don't defend when you could be attacking. As such, the Fox News host's mounting rage against his small-fry critic doesn't deliver the same satisfaction as his other recent smackdowns. An especially ill-advised tactic: Trying to convince emailer "Mr. Fuentes" with an argument about the plight of Smith's "lawn-care maintenance guy." Since, you know, Señor Fuentes will surely understand an economic argument if it's translated into gardening terms. Click the video icon to watch. [via Johnny Dollar]

It's the economic crisis of the century; our entire nation is at risk. Who's to blame and how do we fix it? FOX Business anchor David Asman hosts an in-depth investigation into how we got here.

Congratulations to the John McCain campaign, which has now officially been told off on all three big cable news networks! Attached is a video of MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell taking some hard swings at McCain's sacrificial spokesman, Tucker Bounds, about campaign lying Monday. Also attached: Video of Fox News's Megyn Kelly doing the same thing on right-leaning Fox News Channel. Wow. Remember when CNN did this to Bounds, so McCain cancelled a Larry King interview in a snit? Guess that won't work anymore. Bounds has become a human piñata like Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan before him, as the media hold him responsible for the crimes of his boss, who they can't get at. It's awesome to see, but still all too rare on all the networks. Watch all the fun video after the jump. MSNBC, Monday: Fox, Monday: CNN, two weeks ago:

There has been some discussion going on about the direction of Apple next new models. Speculation became rampant when the Apple CFO referred to some product transition coming up, which may squeeze profit margins. People are trying to guess if it means a switch from Intel to AMD, some new chipset from Semi, the company that Apple acquired, some new video chipset, etc. I can see that they can be called 'trasitions' - but then, so is changing the way a power adaptor connects to the laptop. I do not see any of these as having significant enough impact to warrant the CFO warning of some lower profit margins. My prediction is that Apple may decide to let Mac OS X run on non-Apple 'Windows/Wintel' machines (which would lower margins and be a product 'transition' at the same time). To keep pace with, while not really price-matching the low quality fares of HP and Dell, they would also reduce their own hardware prices somewhat, but still command a premium for additional things like Semi related chips, perhaps GPS and a WWAN capability built in. And, finally, perhaps it is time for the granddaddy of the old and defunct Apple Newton, bring in a TouchMac. A tablet style MacBook Pro with touchscreen, iPhone like functionality, and 3D display capability. It would be cute to call them TouchBooks, but Panasonic may object based on their Toughbook trademarks. That would be tough to book as a trademark! What do you think? Click here to play

English is my third language, but even now I recall teachers at St. Paul's High School in Karachi, Pakistan, teaching us to be careful in stringing words together. One of my favorite songs, Stairway To Heaven says something about how "sometimes words have two meanings". But, sentence structure can have even more impact. But, all too often, we see news stories, especially headlines, that can mean the opposite of what the writer intended. And, most often, they are not deliberate puns. I am sure I am guilty of such errors too. Today's daily email from the Palm Beach Post in my Inbox is amusing. It states: Armored-car worker shot at bank near West Palm Attempted robbery happened this morning Wachovia Bank on Okeechobee Boulevard. View map of bank | More crime news First of all, the way it is written, the text suggests that the armored car worker, an armed guard usually, is the one who shot at the bank building or something related to the bank. Secondly, the sub-heading does not continue logically from the headline itself. For example, it could have conveyed the same information, but tied to the headline by saying something like this, "Shot by bandits during morning robbery at Okeechobee Wachovia Bank" - even using terse verbiage for space-saving reasons. But, what I find amusing about this reporting is how conveniently the "More crime news" link is placed right next to "View map of the bank"... the better to help the next set of bank robbers plan their getaway perhaps! Click here to play

A FaceBook friend of mine, Amanda Bateman, posted a comment on her profile page with an interesting premise - that the three leading anchors on regular TV, Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson (plus, one assumes, their networks) are biased against poor Senator John McCain. Her brief posting, cutely titled, "Three Blind Mice", simply stated, "And the biased media continues...should we be surprised? Probably not." That was followed by the following three URLs. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/07/17/network-anchors-join-obama-world-tour-little-coverage-mccain-travel http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/if_a_network_anchor_falls_in_t.html http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/entertainment&id=6274320 Not that the media does NOT have a bias. Of course it does. It always appears biased in favor of whoever you oppose! But I was amused to read the first link. So, I posted a follow up note to Ms. Bateman'sc comment. I acknowledged that she did make a valid point. But I went on to say that it was amusing to read the first link and have a real pro-Republican blogger quote the... (gulp)... New York Times for an objective comment. :-) I did not check that blog's previous postings to see what they may have to say about some opinions that Fox News Channel simply is a Republican Party propaganda machine. This is not to defend the anchors Amanda criticized above, or their myopic lemming-like networks. But, let's not forget that, media bias not withstanding, the media reports things based on interestingness from the public's perspective. So, Britney Spears' sister having a baby gets on the cover of People magazine but not, say, the Sudanese leader possibly being charged with genocide. Is that particular choice a show of "bias" against black politicians or world leaders? Of course not - though I am sure some will want to think so. No. We have to look at other possible angles also. Even my Republican friends, and objective conservative media professionals all admit, McCain has just not been a very interesting candidate or politician in a very long while. He is NOT good at thinking on his feet when an unfamiliar question is posed to him. (See this video online of him totally lost and clueless http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/mccain_respect_contraception/ ). He seems uncomfortable with his position. All he can do is appear "resolute" in sticking to the failed policy of the war in Iraq. People immediately "accuse" me that I must be some extreme liberal, or Democrat, if I dare criticize anything about Republicans. But, in fact, I am a thorough independent. Ironically, I had been a loud supporter of John McCain for President in 2000 and fully believe we would have been far better off as a nation having him, despite his somewhat loose-cannon personality, as President than the joke of the millennium George W. Bush that fate, and the Supreme Court, foisted on us. (2004's re-election of George Bush is something Republicans and his voters have to take the blame for and know that history will judge their actions as the most destructive single influence starting America's decline in the world at a time it should have been getting far more loved, respected and emulated worldwide). So, much that I supported McCain over Bush in 2000, and much that I respected him for being a war hero (as opposed to a war Zero like Bush), I cannot bring myself to support him for President of the United States in 2008. He has served his country ably, well, sincerely, and should be commended and respected for that. That alone is not reason to elect him President. Does that mean, somehow, that Obama is the perfect candidate. Surely not. Obama can make mistakes, Hillary can still cause trouble enough for the Democracks -- sorry - Democrats to lose the election. That means McCain can obviously not give up. But, just being a candidate does not a campaign make. He needs to smarten up. He has no momentum at present. He has no great ideas. He is sticking to bad ideas on Iraq. He is not exciting to the populace. Even worse, especially from the media perspective, he is just not interesting anymore. That is what his campaign in disarray has to focus on. Try to make him be more exciting, interesting, and, yes, more creative and original than he is at present. Can it be done? What do you think? Click here to play

Everywhere, on every news site, it seems there is nothing but conflict and bad news. The good news is... hold on, I am looking. Nope, I did not find any. Just the top stories in "MyYahoo" is a litany of bad news, followed by worse. It appears that the economic crisis we are facing today, with bank stocks melting (don't even ask how much I lost on Citibank alone), hundreds of thousands facing foreclosure, credit cards and others squeezing customers, oil trying to hit $200, is not going to get better any time soon. Item one, at least on my view of "Top News from Reuters", is a report saying the government is mulling taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What that means is that despite recent claims by their management, and top Bush economic officials, that the organizations have enough money, they in fact are preparing for a bailout. What that means for the rest of the economy, and for the American tax-payer, remains to be seen. The second item shows that the Russians, still following the policies of Mr. Putin (whose eyes and soul apparently Mr. Bush seems to know intimately well), are actually using the recent Iranian missile tests as a reason for the USA NOT to deploy a missile shield. I am not quite sure I understand the "logic" of the Russians. I can understand them not wanting the US to deploy weapons systems that negate Russian military power, but using the (fairly) successful Iranian missile tests as a reason against that defies logic. Wait, there is good news. The new iPhone is being snapped up by customers around the world. Great news. But, much that I love Apple and the iPhone, in the grand scheme of things, and in the serious issues we face, it is kind of silly for that news item to be displayed at par with the economic meltdown in America, the Russian military grumbling and the roar of Iranian rockets and potentially soon, Israeli jets. The next item has me scratching my head. The Mexican government, which does not want to take back its 12 million illegal immigrants (including the many criminals and gang members they sent over), nor wants us to build a fence to keep these illegal hoards out of America, is taking us to court! And, not even our courts, but the 'World Court', where they are fighting to save five Mexican criminals from execution for deadly crimes committed in the USA! So, not only are we supposed to welcome their illegal riff-raff with open arms (doing which both Obama and McCain are falling over each other to show love for illegals), we are also supposed to welcome, and allow to roam free, those among them who commit murder or heinous crimes. Amazing. For a second, my attention was caught by the next item - which could qualify as good news. Lebanon may be able to form a unity government. Whether that is good news or bad depends on which side of their internal strife you are on. But, before I could dwell on that item, the last news item in that list of six top stories was just more bad news on several fronts. Things in Afghanistan, the place where Bin Laden and his henchmen hid and planned their attacks on America, are getting worse. The Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan, and we are losing soldiers in Iraq. The Afghan government is getting weaker and Bin Laden is nowhere to be found, and we are preparing for an attack on Iran. And, what did we just manage to do? Our mistaken bombing just killed 47 civilians there, including women and children. Surely not a sign of success in winning hearts and minds. Bad, very bad, news. With Bin Laden still out there, the Taliban attacking us and our allies more and more, Iraq still a morass, our economy in meltdown, and oil aiming for $200, what is a President to do... why, start a new war of course! Hello, Iran. Hello, $300 oil. Hello, total economic meltdown. What do you think? Click here to play

Generally, I am not a big fan of people or organizations that see, or cry, racism, or sexism, or something-ism or the other, in almost anything, even if none was implied. However, I also strongly believe that, regardless of the (low) merits of political correctness, it is imperative for businesses, especially those in communications or consumer industries, to be cognizant of how their work(s) may be perceived. Sometimes, a racist, or bigoted, or sexist, person may deliberately create advertising, or TV characters, or movie situations that play up stereotypes. Other times it is sheer cluelessness that leads to the same results. The latest example of such, most likely clueless, MADvertising came into my Inbox just now. It is a Sports Authority electronic promotion for Under Armor brand sportswear. What amazes me about this image is the deliberate or inadvertent combination of racism, sexism, stereotyping as a big, strong, and apparently determined Black male is seen running after (or behind) an obviously weaker (single?) white female. Even worse, look at the expression on her face. She is not out running in a determined manner of an athlete. There is almost an expression as if she is concerned and stressed, and looking for shadows on the ground to see if someone is coming after her. Yes, I can be accused to seeing imagery that is not there and imagining these issues where none were implied. But, that is the whole reason I call it MADvertising. Smart communicators and marketers avoid such potential pitfalls to the best of their abilities. This particular ad surely could have been done a lot better. What do you think? === PS. This comment generated a lot of comments, as you can see below. I am quite amazed, and amused, by some of them, but displaying them regardless of the personal attacks. As can be seen, everyone's comments have been posted.... even the ones from the same 'anonymous' using the same computer a few minutes apart. :-) It is also interesting to see many people completely miss my referring to this as most likely an example of clueless advertising (the world is full of more examples than just this) or MADvertising. I think people also miss that I am personally sick of political correctness (or of pandering to particular races that a lot advertising is now doing). I am also sick of having to squint my eyes to read English instructions on product packaging because half of the space has been given up to Spanish. I detest having to choose between English and Spanish when I call banks or other companies' phone numbers. This is America. We speak English. I feel if an organization has so many customers of a particular language or ethnic group then they should set up a separate 800 number for them instead of making their (most likely) 90%+ of English speaking customers to have to select what language to speak in their own country. But, that does not mean I can claim there is no racism here. (I will be accused of being racist for the above comment, while being accused below of seeing racism where it does not exist!) I do raise eyebrows when I see particular ads where, for example, the likelihood of seeing Black models tends to be higher if the ad depicts some sort of stupid behavior. Again, it is not only Blacks shown doing stupid things. There are plenty of ads showing stupidity (in the name of humor) with models who are white males, females or even groups of people. (I will post something about those separately later). But, everyone's comments are appreciated and posted here. Thanks! ImranClick here to play

It was a split decision, but at last and at least the Supreme Court of the United States has taken a stand on the American Constitution. Sadly, it has not had much to say on violations of the Constitution carried out by the Bush regime, nor taken any stand on the daily decline in our constitutionally protected rights. More important to them than the Constitution being torn to shreds were Washington, DC (District of Columbia) gun laws that ban legal ownership of guns by DC citizens. Mind you, DC, among other cities, has often vied for the Murder Capital of the World title. So, I can see the local law enforcement's logic in trying to ban guns (for the last 32 years). But, both as someone born in Pakistan and having been taught to handle my father's favorite Webley & Scott revolver, and now as an American with an affinity for Smith & Wesson/Walther devices, I fully support the right of Americans to bear arms. Of course, the NRA, of which I should be a member but am not, would probably disagree with my contention that there do have to be some limits on the types, and possibly even number, of guns we can or should be allowed to own. I support the right to bear arms for several reasons. My interest in owning weapons includes having them for target shooting, self-defence and all that the Constitution intended as good reasons to bear arms. However, I also do not think we, or any non-law-enforcement citizen, need some sort of 3000 rounds per minute assault rifle or machine gun to do all of the things above. We live in unsafe times. Security of the homeland means protecting ourselves not just from would be suicide-bombers but also from armed home invaders, drug dealers, road-rage-warriors, thugs, muggers, petty criminals, gang members, and so many other types of vile scum that can easily snuff out our lives for a few Dollars, or on a whim. So, I do support the Supreme Court decision shooting down the DC gun laws, but I also hope for two more things. The Supreme Court, and American courts in general, should also not hobble American law-enforcement from coming down hard on hard core criminals who often brazenly conduct their business better armed than our Police officers. Of course, it would also be nice if the Supreme Court actually did something more to protect the whole Constitution itself from our increasingly fascist dictatorial executive branch and lame, crippled Congress, and spineless Senate, and not just try to address one particular aspect of the Constitution. What do you think?Click here to play