About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On Countdown, Media Matters' Burns says Fox News is "no longer a news organization. This is a political organization"

September 29, 2009 9:04 pm ET

From the September 29 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

DAVID SHUSTER (guest host): Joining us now is the president of MediaMatters.org, Eric Burns. Good evening, Eric.

BURNS: Good evening, David.

SHUSTER: So explain to me, why is it indoctrination when kids sing about President Obama, but it's patriotism when kids sing about President Bush and FEMA?

BURNS: Well, David, it's not indoctrination to anybody except Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Roger Ailes -- the rest of the Bush administration in exile over at Fox News, because they are trying to push a political agenda. And they're trying to destroy this administration, and they'll use any means necessary to do it.

And just to give you a little example of this, James O'Keefe, who is the author of one of the suspect ACORN videos that there have been a lot of questions surrounding, told Chris Wallace recently on Fox News that he was employing tactics that would, quote, "destroy his political enemies." So that's what this is about.

There's nothing abnormal about folks talking and children learning about their president and learning to be -- learning about their democracy through talking about the president. I did it when I was a kid.

SHUSTER: The videos that were posted did not blur the children's faces. Both schools have pointed out that the parents were not angered by the performances but were angered over their children's privacy being violated. Where is the right's outrage over that?

BURNS: That's a great question, especially for a movement that typically pays a lot of lip service to caring about local control, about families and about kids. And as I understand it, it wasn't just the YouTube videos where their faces weren't blurred. The initial Fox broadcasts of these videos, their faces weren't blurred either. And what -- the question I have is, did Fox go out and get waivers from each and every one of these parents to broadcast their children's image on national television? And if they did, they ought to produce those. Because frankly, it's illegal if they didn't.

SHUSTER: As far as teaching our kids about the president, is there something wrong with teaching our kids to respect the president, to sing in praise of the office of presidency in an office of the first African-American president?

BURNS: Absolutely not. You know, as I said, look, I went to Catholic school in Texas. I was taught about the president and learned to respect the presidency of the United States, to be a patriotic American. My parents were taught the same thing.

This is a very normal and appropriate way to educate young children about our democracy. It's important, and it's -- it just goes to show you to what lengths the folks at Fox News will go to derail the political discussion in this country and what deplorable tactics they will do -- exploiting our nation's children. I think it's really disgusting.

SHUSTER: And is that the general theme here with the right-wing media, I mean, undermining the president by manufacturing controversies, because many of the actual Obama policies are favored by the majority of Americans?

BURNS: Absolutely. We've seen it day after day. You know, Glenn Beck is the smearer in chief over at Fox News. And we see new charts, you know, documenting some new vast conspiracy theory every day, new attacks, and it's a constant barrage.

And I'll tell you, this right-wing noise machine has been ginned up. It's never been more ferocious, and their goal is simple -- as Rush Limbaugh stated at the beginning of the year -- they want Obama to fail. Roger Ailes said that this is the Alamo for conservatives and that Fox is the voice of the opposition.

So, this is no longer a news organization. This is a political organization, and their aim is to destroy a progressive policy agenda. They'd rather win in the ballot box than see any sort of real debate on health care. It's a real shame.

SHUSTER: Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for America. Eric, thanks as always. We appreciate you coming in.

BURNS: Thank you, David.

Previously:

Kid video redux: Conservatives freak out over another video of kids "praising" Obama

O'Reilly still outraged over school kids "SHOCK VIDEO," says "we're keeping a close eye on the indoctrination of children"

School kids "SHOCK VIDEO" quickly jumps from conservative blogs to Fox News

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (September 29, 2009 9:15 pm ET)
      20 1
      No longer a news organization? When was it ever one? FOX has always been the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. That's its intended purpose.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tuersm3856 (September 29, 2009 11:34 pm ET)
        1 21
        No doubt, but what is MMFA?

        ..and it IS indoctrination. Did Bush really have kids singing his praises in schools? Because that is just as disgusting. To worship any state "official" is servile and cowardly.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (September 29, 2009 11:53 pm ET)
          14 1
          A news network that claims to be "fair and balanced" isn't particularly comparable to a website that explicitly states that it targets conservative misinformation. Besides, either Burns is right or he isn't. FOX is not a legitimate news organization, so he is correct.

          If it wasn't in the context of Black History Month, I would agree. What does anyone expect during that time period, a month after the first black president is sworn in? Even if you want to argue that it was overdone, it's pretty understandable. Cut a little slack.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by slowtyper (September 30, 2009 12:04 am ET)
          5  
          oh please..more mock indignation..worship..?? indoctrination..?? servile..?? because you can spell the word doesn't mean you are using it legitimately
          Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (September 30, 2009 1:39 am ET)
          7  
          tuersm3856

          Do yourself a favor and learn something about the Fox Noise Channel and their collective belief on what the truth is!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 30, 2009 3:48 am ET)
          7  
          Then why do conservatives(republicans worship Ronald Wilson Reagan.Reagan not only tried,and did indoctrinate children,he sent messages home to parentsby them,to indoctrinate children in so called conservative valuesThe conservative(republican)nightmare is Obama will out shine Reagan.Reagan was an actor playing a role without a clue,and he had alzheimer's,before he left office.Reagan acted like a president,Obama is a president.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by overmars jr. (September 30, 2009 5:54 am ET)
          6  
          Erm... MMfA is not a news organization and never claimed to be such. They openly claim to be a media watch site that shines a light on conservative media bias and misinformation.

          How hard is that?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (September 30, 2009 7:50 am ET)
          7  
          Yes Bush had kids singing his praises in schools. No wingnuts were offended.

          I remember as a kid, respecting and probably singing about and glorifying Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F Kennedy. That's what school kids have been doing in this country for a long time.
          It's not indoctrination. It's teaching respect for the office and respect for the office holder.

          We have to ask ourselves what's different now? It can't be party because I sang about a Republican and a Democratic president in school. It's not religion or gender, because all of our presidents have been male Christians. They're from all over the nation so it's not related to geography. We've had wealthy and middle class presidents so it's not that. We've had presidents with civilian and or military backgrounds, so that can't be the reason.

          What's different about this president? What would bring out the underlying rage in this country?

          I'm not able to put my finger on a reason.

          What makes President Obama different?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (September 30, 2009 8:10 am ET)
            5  
            I also remember singing songs about Reagan, the Founding Fathers, and a bunch of other Presidents when we learned about them when I was in school growing up. Do I even remember those songs? No, heck no. I remember doing them, but not the words. I also know that as a kid, the last thing I cared about was politics. And it's probably the same for these kids, and why do people think kids are so gullible anyway? Thing is, kids are a lot smarter than most adults give them credit for, and as they grow, and get exposed to more experiences and things like that, they may, or may not get a political viewpoint. I don't think singing a song or 2 about a President (no matter who it is) will "indoctrinate" them in the least.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (September 30, 2009 8:57 am ET)
              2  
              Thank God they didn't make high school kids sing about their president. I doubt I could have sung the praises of LBJ, although I did have a few choice words to say about him in those days and even may have sung songs about him that he would have not liked.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 30, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
              1  
              That is because the praise for our president that is naturally a part of the public school system is not about political parties. It is about respect for the system. And, I have no problem with it. We indoctrinate our kids to respect the system that we have and the leaders we elect. Good. Teach your kids the skepticism and cynicism necessary at home - the way it should be.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by raynfala (September 30, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
            1  

            What makes President Obama different?



            *raises hand*

            He's... Hawaiian?

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 30, 2009 8:30 am ET)
          9 1
          No doubt, but what is MMFA?
          That's all you've got? "I know you are, but what am I?"

          Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 30, 2009 9:05 am ET)
          7  
          MMFA is a MEDIA WATCHDOG SITE, moran, and never claimed to be otherwise. (Unlike Fox "NEWS.") Nor have they ever claimed to be "Fair and Balanced." (Unlike Fox News.) What they ARE is thourough, detailed, well-cited, well-researched, principled and factually accurate... UNLIKE FOX NEWS.

          And it's NOT 'indoctination.' You thinking it IS indoctrination is a better example of indoctrination.

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          GET A BRAIN, MORAN!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by revjmike (September 30, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
               
            @NiceguyEddie, while I maya gree with your statement, you used the Tea Partiers spelling for "moron."
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Handsome Pete (September 30, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
                 
              He may have done that on purpose. I've seen other posters make that obvious error without any other spelling mishaps. Especially when addressing or making reference to a talking- point spouting right-wing nozzle.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 30, 2009 10:22 am ET)
          4  
          MMFA doesn't represent itself as a news organization. It simply reviews so-called "conservative" programming and other programming and notes inaccurate or newsworthy comments made by individuals on those programs.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by joeklein395301 (September 30, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
            4
          The left has ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, New York times, Washington Post, list goes on, still claim they can no get their massage out, the president after over 128 appearances and interviews and town hall meeting still claims he can not get his message out, but left still crying foul over Fox, have you consider may be it is the message not the messanger, have you asked yourself why Fox rating is higher than all the leftist media combined. I don't know is funding them because with their rating they can not survive in a free market. This the Nelson rating

          Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for September 28, 2009

          P2+ Total Day
          FNC – 1,362,000 viewers
          CNN – 486,000 viewers
          MSNBC –350,000 viewers
          CNBC – 193,000 viewers
          HLN – 3112,000 viewers

          P2+ Prime Time
          FNC – 2,515,000viewers
          CNN— 595,000 viewers
          MSNBC –613,000 viewers
          CNBC – 203,000 viewers
          HLN – 577,000viewers
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Handsome Pete (September 30, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
            2  
            I wish I could get my massage out, my neck is really tight.

            Funny, you say Fox "rating" is higher than all the other "leftist" media combined, but don't list the ratings for half the networks you claim are part of the leftist media (ABC, NBC, CBS). Surely the ratings for the newscasts of the broadcast networks are available.

            Don't bother explaining, we all know exactly why you didn't do it.
            I do wonder if you have the stones to admit it, though.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by joeklein395301 (September 30, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
                3
              Fox news is cable news show, it should be compared with others cables news shows, it is apple and orange thing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Handsome Pete (October 01, 2009 11:07 am ET)
                2  
                You bought up the broadcast networks, douchenozzle, not me. If you don't want to compare them, don't compare them.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by overmars jr. (October 01, 2009 5:05 am ET)
            3  
            Milli Vanilli sold over 6 million albums and won a Grammy.

            Now does popularity in any way make one automatically credible?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (September 29, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
      10 1
      I agree 100%. Fox is no longer a news organization, they are the modern day Goebbles Global News Network.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by richardsimones (September 30, 2009 1:31 am ET)
        2 9
        I don't get your Nazi reference...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 30, 2009 7:13 am ET)
          7  
          The way fox presents the news,lying,and during the delivery of that lie state that they are telling the truth, if examined closely are text book brainwashing methods.When this is compared with methods used by Nazi Germany,there is a very close resemblence.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 30, 2009 8:48 am ET)
          7 1
          I don't get your Nazi reference...
          Than your ignorance outshines your stupidity.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by ProgLib (September 29, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
      6  
      ive known that about fox news ever since i first started watching.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Major Tom (September 29, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
      2  
      Right on.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (September 29, 2009 9:32 pm ET)
      1 1
      And it's only going to get worse...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MatthewTexas (September 29, 2009 9:40 pm ET)
      4  
      In the early years of Fox News i honestly didn't realize Fox picked sides..

      And i watched Fox/Friends almost everyday...

      6 years later i cant believe i didn't realized that Fox picked sides
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eastcoast (September 29, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
      9 3
      Fox noise needs to be shut down,they are doing nothing but hurting our country. Freedom of speach doesnt even come into play with fox. They are deliberately trying to hurt president Obama and his administration anyway that they can. I get a kick out of the talkingheads on fox saying "fair and balanced" what a freakin joke.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by barscotch9441 (September 29, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
        2  
        You should take great care when advocating shutting anyone down who disagrees with you. The ideal would be for their stupidity to implode upon itself, which it may do. At the rate Beck's sponsors cut and run, who knows what might happen? However, saying that they should be shut down is, forgive my idealism, un-American. I'm a moderate liberal who is so disgusted by their hate & lies that I'd rather watch reality TV or game shows, but for them to be shut down by any force other than their own idiocy would be criminal in this country.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 30, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
          1  
          I agree barscotch. The "people" should be able to realize what is so obviously true. If the "people" are too stupid, well then that is the scary part about a democracy. Sometimes the people are ill-informed. Now, as far as saying they cannot call themselves a "news" organization - there may be something to that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by barscotch9441 (October 01, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
               
            Definitely. Their use of the phrase "Fair and Balanced" and calling themselves Fox "News" should perhaps be revisited. I mentioned in a different discussion a couple weeks ago something about misleading or false advertising. It would be fantastic if a suit could be brought against them for these reasons and they lost, particularly with a conservative judge.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (September 29, 2009 11:55 pm ET)
        10 1
        "Fox noise needs to be shut down, they are doing nothing but hurting our country."

        I think this was why the Fairness Doctrine was originally put in place. So the "public airwaves" could not be bought out by a few and degraded into what we see today of Fox and on radio in the right-wingnut echo chamber.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (September 30, 2009 8:11 am ET)
        7 2
        Sorry, but you can't just shut them down because they're doing things to damage Obama's administration and his presidency, that would be antithetical to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Because, freedom of speech doesn't mean that it has to be true or factual.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blueline99 (September 30, 2009 11:16 am ET)
          4  
          It does have to be true or factual when it comes to News organizations, and if their lies are injurous to a person or organization, it's certainly actionable...

          First ammendment rights are thrown around so freely, but they only protect you from the government.

          A news organization does not have any first ammendment protection from other private parties. And it certainly doesn't protect them from slander or defamation lawsuits.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (September 30, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
        2  
        I don't think we should shut them down, but I do think they should change their name to 'GOP & Friends'.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ndfishfan (September 29, 2009 10:56 pm ET)
        5
      Are you the Eric Burns that was fired by FOX last year.... I thought so.... but thanks for airing your beef tonight, it was a great laugh.... glad to see you found another job and that MSNBC was so desperate that they found you...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (September 29, 2009 11:11 pm ET)
      1 21
      Let's see...how's that go again...I want to make sure that I get it right...you know, the protocol that mmfa preaches about identifying the group or organization that a guest represents.

      Shuster and Countdown failed to inform the audience that the organization represented by Burns is a liberal group...opposed to anything conservative...and the audience should have been told that...according to principles espoused by mmfa.

      Unless they only believe that tenet when it concerns a conservative?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (September 29, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
        8  
        nice job in changing the subject. when you can't attack the messege find some stupid minor thing to attack the messenger on. maybe he did not specify that he was from a liberal group. but so what? according to you guys "everyone" knows that MSNBC and media matters are liberal bias. i would think that would carry as much weight as "some people"
        but i guess thats the only arguement you can make because the extreamism from the right must even be getting embaressing to you. there was no foul here. the kids sang a song for black history month about the current president. have you seen the one with the little kids singing the praises of bush and fema after katrina? was that "indoctrination?
        try addressing the topic maybe.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (September 30, 2009 12:02 am ET)
          4 3
          He has a legitimate point. They should inform viewers of the nature of MMfA, so that they can properly evaluate what is presented. I don't really expect MMfA to point it out, since it doesn't favor conservatives, but it's still shoddy work on the part of Shuster.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by peace4all (September 30, 2009 12:11 am ET)
            6 1
            man, you guys just can't seem to stay on topic. ok, i will give you that it was an oversight and maybe even a grand conspiricy. so lets move on and address the topic which they were discussing shall we?
            if the school had a legitimate reason to sing the song and the parents were fine with it, then who is exploiting the kids? the school or the right wing that published the kids faces on a natioal level without permission? thats the topic thats up for discussion. lets see what you can add the the conversation. i really want to see you defend fox and the rest of the right wing screamers here.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (September 30, 2009 12:18 am ET)
              3 3
              Nobody is exploiting the kids, as far as I'm concerned. I made that pretty clear in my post at 11:53 p.m.

              People go off topic all the time, regardless of ideology. I don't see why pointing out Shuster's failure to uphold standards is forbidden.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by AmendingAngel (September 30, 2009 2:03 am ET)
                1  
                What standards? There is absolutely no law that states you must inform the public whether the guest is a liberal or conservative. As a matter of fact, judging from right wing news, you can do anything you please. If you want respect, you have to earn it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (September 30, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I didn't say anything about "law". It's relevant information that should be provided to the viewer. The fact that right wing news doesn't adhere to any standards doesn't change that.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 30, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                  1  
                  We agree that the right-wing media has no standards. But that is no reason for everyone else to abandon theirs. Media Matters should have been identified as what they are. The fault lies with Shuster, though, not Media Matters.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (September 30, 2009 11:26 am ET)
                1  
                I disagree I think Faux is definitely exploiting the kids and may have broken some laws in doing so.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by richardsimones (September 30, 2009 1:34 am ET)
          1 9
          He was being Bizarro Keith Olbermann! =)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 30, 2009 8:53 am ET)
            3  
            And if anyone knows Bizarro, it's the Bizarro Richard Simmons.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by richardsimones (September 30, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
              1  
              My mother's error in naming me is of little relevance. In my defense you DID spell my name wrong.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by AmendingAngel (September 30, 2009 1:56 am ET)
          3  
          You know what, so what if they were singing a song? Why does it even matter? It certainly is not going to kill them or make them ill or hurt anyone else for that matter.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by AmendingAngel (September 30, 2009 1:53 am ET)
        1  
        You have got to be kidding? You don't deserve respect or consideration. Just go away and take the rest of the manure with you. People like you disgrace this land and its people. You won't be seeing the White House anytime soon.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 30, 2009 3:57 am ET)
        8  
        If people don't know MMFA is libral,then fox,and conservative(republican) talk radio has failed and no one listens to them.Is that what you are saying?????
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (September 30, 2009 8:13 am ET)
        3  
        They put up the website on the screen (mediamatters.org), so if people are interested in where he's coming from, they can check it out for themselves right?

        I don't have an issue when say, they ID someone from being the Heritage Foundation, or some other such conservative group. They've been identified, and it could be up to me to go and look at what they're doing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (September 30, 2009 8:30 am ET)
          1 2
          I think you're giving viewers too much credit here. Do you think that MMfA wouldn't criticize a network for having someone from the MRC, without pointing out the nature of that organization? People could look it up, but there's many who would not. Just like "Media Matters for America", "Media Research Center" sounds neutral by itself, so why would viewers think they would need to do their own research?

          Consider that MMfA has criticized print and web articles for the placement of pertinent facts late in the column, because many people won't read an entire article. Those people could, though, couldn't they? It's right in front of their eyes. Yet, that failure on their part doesn't stop MMfA from criticizing the people who hide those facts at the end of an article.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (September 30, 2009 8:57 am ET)
        1 1
        Shuster and Countdown failed to inform the audience that the organization represented by Burns is a liberal group...opposed to anything conservative...and the audience should have been told that...according to principles espoused by mmfa.

        It's very clear you have never read the MMFA mission statement.

        Wesley! You have been here long enough to know better.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (September 30, 2009 10:33 am ET)
        1  
        You know, truth is truth, wesley. It doesn't matter who's saying it or what you think of their political ideology.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (September 30, 2009 11:23 am ET)
        1  
        the protocol that mmfa preaches about identifying the group or organization that a guest represents.

        Shuster and Countdown failed to inform the audience that the organization represented by Burns is a liberal group...opposed to anything conservative.


        Burns' group was identified--verbally and on the chyron as mediamatters.org. What you are asking is for the group's political affiliation to also be noted. By the way, I don't think MMFA's agenda is not "opposition to anything conservative".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by New Frontier (September 30, 2009 11:54 am ET)
             
          I meant to say:

          I don't think MMFA's agenda is "opposition to anything conservative".
          Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (September 30, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        1  
        Probably 95% of the people who watch Countdown know who MMFA is and what they represent. This is a non-issue and the fact you can't address the main topic were addressing here is not helping you any.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 30, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
        1  
        I agree, wesley. They should at least say something along the lines of "fighting right-wing misinformation" or whatever they claim on their site. Although, I think the blame for that rests with MSNBC and Shuster rather than Media Matters. Media Matters has never seemed shy to me about admitting their bias against the right.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tuersm3856 (September 29, 2009 11:39 pm ET)
        13
      ...and wrong again, Mr. Burns. The United States is not a "democracy." It is a Constitutional Republic, and as such it is meant to protect the minority from the whims of an uneducated majority.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (September 29, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
        5  
        A Republic is a form of democracy. It's just not a pure or direct democracy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (September 30, 2009 1:54 am ET)
          6  
          tuersm3856

          I like you little dig on the majority there little fella... bet it took you all of three months to come up with that one!

          Har-dy har har
          Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (September 29, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
        3  
        here's a tip, when you post a comment, have a point, or at least something relevent to the article. it makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (September 30, 2009 3:47 am ET)
          1 4
          Does this apply to the 'thumbs down troll'?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (September 30, 2009 10:32 am ET)
               
            Looks like he mutated into triplets just for you. Thats what those negative vibs can do to you.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Handsome Pete (September 30, 2009 10:24 am ET)
             
          Gotta love a good Planes, Trains, and Automobiles reference.

          You also might listen to Stephanie Miller regularly, which would also be a plus.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (September 30, 2009 12:02 am ET)
        8  
        It is also meant to protect the majority from the baseless and cowardly stalling of the MINORITY.

        You know, protect us from conservatives.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (September 30, 2009 1:49 am ET)
        5  
        tuersm3856

        Actually... if you want to be real technical... the pure definition of what America (would be, if not for corporate money) is:

        A Representative Democracy or Democratic Republic

        ** I suppose Constitutional instead of Representative could work as well, since they mean basically the same thing **

        Report Abuse
        • Author by JoshSN (September 30, 2009 8:38 am ET)
          1  
          It really depends on whose dictionary you are using.

          The American Revolutionaries (rebranded as the "Founders" by the modern right wing movement) had, as their oracle of political philosophy, Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et la Montesquieu.

          By his definitions, there are two types of Republics, Democratic and Aristocratic. The Democratic selects its officers by lottery (like in ancient Athens) and "everyone" is a Legislator. The Aristocratic selects its officers by election. Madison's definition of a Republic from Federalist #39 is similar, he says it is where all Officers are elected or are appointed by people who were.

          I like Montesquieu so much that I feel no shame in calling myself an Aristocrat.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (September 30, 2009 6:39 am ET)
        5  
        Uneducated= Didn't Vote the Way I Did. Got it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 30, 2009 8:55 am ET)
        4  
        and as such it is meant to protect the minority from the whims of an uneducated majority.
        Then it failed miserably during the Reagan, Bush, and Cheney, um, Dumbya Administrations.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (September 30, 2009 10:31 am ET)
        3  
        Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

        Democracy: . government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

        Democracy synonyms: democratic system, democratic state, democratic organization, representative form of government, republic, parliamentary government

        Republic synonyms: state, nation, democracy

        The United States IS a democracy and a republic.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by HotWings (September 30, 2009 4:59 am ET)
        12
      Hey Eric Burns, you didn't see the irony of going on MSNBC to complain that another network is a "political organization"? MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama that they might as well be on his payroll.

      Secondly, if a teacher had forced his or her students to sing songs of praise for George W. Bush, would you be okay with that? I doubt it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 30, 2009 7:04 am ET)
        8  
        Between Fox and MSNBC which one shamelessly lies all the time.If you say they both lie,Fox is still the leading liar.People on fox talk about MMFA all the time.But how many times have you heard anyone on fox say MMFA lied about this or that,and prove it???? Can you say the same about fox????
        Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (September 30, 2009 7:48 am ET)
        8  
        Watching Joe and Mika right now, with Pat Buchanon, that old lefty! They must be what floats on top of the Obama tank.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (September 30, 2009 8:15 am ET)
        8  
        Umm, if you watched the segment he talked about the songs that were being sung about W in New Orleans post Katrina praising him, and he didn't have an issue with it. I'd be OK with a bunch of school kids singing about the President, regardless of who it is. Why not? Why do you guys have a problem with a bunch of kids respecting the office of the President?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (September 30, 2009 7:02 am ET)
      7  
      I drove through my town again yesterday, and no goose steeping, or kids singing about Obama.

      Ya know this is the third day I have been on the lookout and I am getting a bit frustrated not seeing any "indoctrinated" kids.

      Don't worry, I'll go again today, because I want to protect my country from this dangerous and insidious threat.

      Stay tuned for tomorrows update !
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dolfan (September 30, 2009 7:34 am ET)
        1  
        Thanks for looking!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (September 30, 2009 7:51 am ET)
        2  
        It's still to soon to do it in front of anybody, bit if You wear your uniform We'll let you into practice!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by coldteablues19577325 (September 30, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
           
        This Friday afternoon marks the beginning of Homecoming Weekend here in Vincennes. It opens with the annual Homecoming Parade. I'll have to make sure to get a good curb-side seat downtown and watch for the goose-stepping school children that are sure to make up a large segment of the parade. I'll be sure to post photos on Flickr.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (September 30, 2009 9:24 am ET)
        8
      there is a huge difference between teaching children to respect the president and indoctrinating them to endorse his policies, such as "equal work means equal pay, hmm hmm hmm!"... who is to judge what equal work is, obama?...

      as for burns, since he went to catholic school he probably had no problem with pledging allegiance to the flag "under god" and reading scripture in class, which is a problem in most public schools these days... apparently the only god you're allowed to worship in class is obama...

      if burns has a problem with fox i'd love to see him confront o'reilly and company face to face, i'm sure he'd be more than welcome... catching softball questions from shuster is weak...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by kfraz43 (September 30, 2009 10:13 am ET)
        6  
        You're kind of all over the place in this post, mookie. I'd suggest that you use the "Preview" option here so you can see if your words make sense before you save.

        First, in both instances the performances were in FEBRUARY - less than a month after Obama was inaugurated. It was Black History Month, and the most monumental thing to ever happen in the history of black people had just occurred. It's not often that we have a living history lesson. Second, in at least one school's case, the lyrics to the song were sent home with the kids for review by the parents. Having a wife who teaches in a conservative district, I can guarantee you that if there were ONE parent who disagreed with the lyrics, it would've made national news immediately. As it is, it took over seven months for the story to get out, and only then because the performance was posted on YouTube. You might also want to note that the "indoctrination" meme didn't become a talking point until the president's speech at the beginning of the school year.

        Regarding your senseless rant against Burns: He went to PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL, so it would be expected that he would read scripture in class. That's why PRIVATE religious schools exist - for parents who want their children to be... wait for it... INDOCTRINATED into their theological beliefs. That's also why there's no need for PUBLIC schools to read scripture - parents have an option.

        And as far as confronting o'reilly, it seems that you think billo is a badass. But really, there's no reason for someone who disagrees with Fox to go on ANY Fox program to air their disagreement - the echo chamber is too tightly sealed to permit voices of dissent.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (September 30, 2009 11:55 am ET)
          2  
          Hey Mookie... you just got your hat handed to you! You said it all kfar.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (September 30, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
          1  
          kfraz43

          Nailed it big time!!

          I wonder if we will ever see mookie von zipper ever again??
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (September 30, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
              3
            yeah, you go, kfraz43!... but i'm hardly all over the place... the other 42 kfraz's didn't seem to have any trouble following my logic...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by kfraz43 (September 30, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
              2  
              What do you expect? The other 42 are impostors.

              And with all due respect, it's tough to follow something that goes nowhere.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 30, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
             
          Well done, kfraz. Although, I think you are wasting your truth on mookie. Anyone who would attack equality and state "i'd love to see him confront o'reilly and company face to face" may just be a waste of time intellectually.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (September 30, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
              2
            well, that's a pretty broad brush accusation of my beliefs on equality, based soley on my stance on equal work for equal pay... perhaps you can shed light on other areas of equality that i'm against... but if you think waving a magic legislative wand will do less harm than good in this area, then you are quite the utopic myopian...

            do i believe in equality in the general sense?... of course... equal work for equal pay?... in the general sense, sure... in the mandated practicality of such a notion?... have fun managing that scenario...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by kfraz43 (September 30, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                 
              Oh, I get it now - because he can't PROVE that equal work for equal pay will not be mandated, that means it obviously WILL be mandated. You'd think after all this time I'd remember the "logic".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mookie von zipper (October 01, 2009 12:07 am ET)
                  2
                wow, you and huck sure have a knack for taking concise comments and projecting them into major assumptions...

                so 2 utopic myopians walk into a bar...

                Report Abuse
      • Author by Handsome Pete (September 30, 2009 11:46 am ET)
        3  
        You think O'Reilly has the balls to have someone from MMFA on? That's a laugh. David Brock requested for years to go on the O'Reilly Factor to confront O'Reilly with his accusations of MMFA smearing him, and never got a response. Why? Because Dild has no evidence of it, while MMFA has dozens of examples of O'Reilly lying or misrepresenting facts. Anytime Dild says MMFA smears him, he NEVER goes into detail. None of the people who get written about here do. Stossell called it a smear site on Scarborough's show with Paul Waldman on, Waldman asked what did MMFA specifically say that was untrue. Stossell stammered and didn't answer the question before Scarborough jumped in to his rescue. They have NOTHING.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by alienofwar (September 30, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
          3  
          Of course they have nothing, but they must appear to their audience to have something or their out of business.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (September 30, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
          1  
          He's not even man enough to approach journalists such as Bill Moyers without ambushing them. How can ANYONE who doesn't know the difference between a loofah and falafel be taken seriously anyway? Sheesh!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (September 30, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
        4  
        there is a huge difference between teaching children to respect the president and indoctrinating them to endorse his policies, such as "equal work means equal pay, hmm hmm hmm!"... who is to judge what equal work is, obama?...
        I really don't know where you're thinking that there's some issue with quantification here. It means that a job should pay the same for everyone who has that job. Do you think they're talking about comparing different jobs in different fields, and trying to figure out if it's the exact same amount of work or not?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (September 30, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
            3
          maybe that concept works for flipping burgers or positions in government... but it shouldn't be difficult to understand how vague the concept of equal work for equal pay is... experience and market regions are just a few of the aspects that come into play... should a private company be federally mandated to pay a punk out of college, say in the IT field, in Mississippi, what an IT guy with 10 plus years of experience in California or New York City makes?...

          the question still remains, who defines what's equal, even if the IT guy is in the same field, same city, same experience... equal work for equal pay is a just a feelgood notion that has no chance of working in a practical matter, and not without a flurry of lawsuits to boot, even if oppressed businesses try to comply...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (September 30, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
            1  
            Of course experience makes a difference in pay. And we're not talking about different regions, obviously. Each region has its own economy that determines pay level.

            I really can't believe this really needs to be spelled out this much, but the idea is that everyone should be treated the same, regardless of racial/gender/sexual orientation status. If Joe gets paid 70K with his 10 years of experience and solid work record, then Jane gets 70K with her 10 years of experience and solid work record. Why should she get 53K? We're talking about what individual employers can control here.

            That is not a "feelgood notion", that's equality. And any employer that can't find a way of treating employees equally should be sued.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (September 30, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
                2
              so back to the original crux of this thread... whether or not one agrees with the tenets written by teachers, no matter how seemingly just, it's just plain wrong to indoctrinate policy into their little obamatrons to spout out on cue... now, granted, "equal work for equal pay" seems innocuous enough, but what's next?:

              hmm hmm hmm
              barack hussein obama
              health insurance for everyone
              he'll make us safe and take your gun

              where does it stop?... at least these creepy little kids made it safe to utter the chosen one's middle name in public again...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (October 01, 2009 12:54 am ET)
                1  
                If there's nothing controversial about "equal work means equal pay", then what's the problem? Are bigoted parents going to protest that schools are promoting racial harmony or something? To use your slippery slope logic, what's next? Objecting to lessons about respecting elders and sharing?

                Let's remember that this was a Black History Month event. So if the "policy" that was mentioned goes along with the theme of equality, then there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there will be anything "next". It's fully consistent with the nature of the program, so it's not even going near anything like health care or gun rights. And what's more, even if someone were to cross that line at some point, that doesn't affect how this incident is evaluated, because the reasoning for this incident is perfectly understandable all on its own. If there is some future controversy, then that's another story, and that may be inappropriate.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (October 01, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
                    1
                  this incident is inappropriate, as was the first one during his candidacy, with teachers using kids as tools of "change" in the middle of a campaign...

                  i don't fault my president in this case, who i did not vote for, but unlike many bush haters, he is my president for better or worse... and teaching common respect is one thing, but worshiping the guy like a dictator now that he's in office is sick...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (October 02, 2009 12:06 am ET)
                    1  
                    Again, it's pretty hard to criticize people for being excited about the first Black president for a Black History Month event. You have to expect some occurrence of that, realistically.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (September 30, 2009 10:24 am ET)
      5  
      Any supposed "news" organization which has the tag line "fair and balanced" is suspect. News is neither fair nor balanced. News is news. Opinion might be fair and balanced, but not news. Opinion on Fox is not fair and balanced, either.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by quantpro (September 30, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
        3
      I can't remember when President Bush in either term of office ever had school programs singing his praise by grade school kids. In fact my daughter was coming home from school in 2003 with material promoting 911 conspiracy theories and mobilizing NYC HS students against the war. I think these charges against FOX could easily have been applied to other organizations which have stopped reporting unbiased news as well. I don't have to agree with someones commentary but the news should be factual and delivered in a fair and honest way.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 30, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
        1  
        "I can't remember when President Bush in either term of office ever had school programs singing his praise by grade school kids."

        That is because you clearly get all your "news" from Fox News. Wake up, this idea was debunked days ago. Where have you been?
        Report Abuse