Lou Dobbs, He Used To Be A Journalist

by sarabeth at 6:00 am on May 8th, 2007 in Media

Lou Dobbs has been pretending for a while to be a journalist. It looks he’s just got tired of pretending.

CBS’s Lesley Stahl took him on in a “60 Minutes” interview, and gave him a little bit of what he so richly deserves:

“Well, here’s what they say about you: that you distort the figures, that you exaggerate and that you aim to inflame just to get ratings,” Stahl says.

“Oh, really?” Dobbs replies. “That’s fascinating, because what I can’t understand is why other journalists would not take on the issues of free trade, illegal immigration, outsourcing—all of these rather sexy topics … which I’ve been covering for years.”

“Reporters don’t ‘take on’ issues. Reporters ‘report’ issues, and there’s a big difference there,” Stahl says. “Do you think you’re a journalist?”

“Absolutely,” Dobbs says. “I may be an advocacy journalist, but I’m a journalist.”

One of the issues he tackles relentlessly is illegal immigration. And on that, his critics say, his advocacy can get in the way of the facts.

Following a report on illegal immigrants carrying diseases into the U.S., one of the correspondents on his show, Christine Romans, told Dobbs that there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in the past three years.

60 Minutes checked that and found a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, saying that 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three. The report also says that nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants.

That certainly seems to fit the charge of “that you distort the figures, that you exaggerate and that you aim to inflame just to get ratings”. Unless it was just an honest mistake? Anyone can make a mistake, after all. Stahl offered Dobbs a piece of rope. Dobbs promptly proceeded to comprehensively hang himself:

“We went to try and check that number, 7,000. We can’t…,” Stahl says.

“Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it’s a fact,” Dobbs replies.

“You can’t tell me that. You did report it,” Stahl says.

“I just did,” Dobbs says.

“How can you guarantee that to me?” Stahl asks.

Says Dobbs, “Because I’m the managing editor. And that’s the way we do business. We don’t make up numbers, Lesley.”

One of these days, Dobbs is going to say something about The Bubble that Bush lives in. I guarantee that several people across America will die laughing.

The best part of the 60 minutes interview though has to be:

STAHL: What about fair and balanced?

L. DOBBS: I’ve never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I’ve found it to be…

STAHL: But, that’s — but wait, what’s the definition of journalism? That — that’s in there. That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced.

L. DOBBS: I truly believe there’s a non-partisan independent reality…

Just to put this into perspective by stating the obvious: Dobbs has now sunk so low that he thinks it’s perfectly fine for people who are managing editors at CNN to go on national TV and say that they don’t give two hoots for fair and balanced. Or, to be fair to Dobbs, either he thinks it’s fine, or he just doesn’t care any more what he says to whom. He’s too big a star, and he puts up the ratings (which have “nearly doubled in the last two years”). It’s hard to imagine that the network which cheerfully gives a prime-time platform to Glenn Beck cares about anything else. It’s hard to imagine that they would actually fire Lou Dobbs, for making them and himself look ludicrous. And maybe that’s all Dobbs cares about any more.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Bureaucrash - Join the Resistance » Blog Archive » Lou Dobbs, He Used To Be A Journalist on 30 Mar 2009 at 6:19 am

    [...] http://www.1115.org/2007/05/08/lou-dobbs-he-used-to-be-a-journalist/  Email This   Print This [...]

Comments

  1. tom wrote:

    hmmm. i agree with him that there is a non-partisan independant reality. right now it just so happens to be that that reality is almost exactly opposite to what the conservatives in power say.

    but the concept of “fair and balanced” is NOT what journalism is about, is it? fair and balanced implies that all sides of an issue should get equal coverage, no matter how loony the premise theyre pushing is. journalism is about reporting that non-partisan independant reality. dobbs’ only problem is that that is not what he is doing.

  2. sarabeth wrote:

    fair and balanced implies that all sides of an issue should get equal coverage, no matter how loony the premise theyre pushing is.

    not at all. “fair and balanced” only means the truth should be presented fairly and in a balanced way.

    To me, the telling part of that last exchange was Dobbs saying “I’ve never found the truth to be fair and balanced”.

    I imagine almost everyone would have to agree with “I truly believe there’s a non-partisan independent reality…” After all, that’s only saying “I believe there’s such a thing as truth”, isn’t it?

  3. sac wrote:

    Stahl was being a bit naive in her description of journalism, perhaps intentionally so. Still, Dobbs’ refusal to address the leprosy numbers and the immense arrogance of this statement:

    “Because I’m the managing editor. And that’s the way we do business. We don’t make up numbers, Lesley.”

    paint Dobbs as a major asshole.

  4. kang wrote:

    60 Minutes..are you kidding me? How about ‘advocacy journalists for the state of Israel’?

  5. Thomas wrote:

    Hate to agree with Dobbs, but there is in fact an “independent, non-partisan reality.”

    Balance is just a way for journalists to have an excuse for being lazy and not searching for the truth. We saw it with global warming. This artificial concept of balance leads reporters to give credence to corporate scientists who claimed it didn’t exist.

    Now, whether Dobbs actually practices what he preaches is another matter.

  6. sarabeth wrote:

    for anyone using the word balance in this discussion, it will probably be helpful if you clarify if you mean tom’s balance or mine.

  7. Thomas wrote:

    How about just agreeing there is no such thing as balance?

  8. matt wrote:

    there are situations where the competing sides each have valid points, and it is important to have both represented. i’ll grant that this is getting rarer and rarer, especially in politics.

  9. peggy wrote:

    It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world (Kinks). Left leaning elites are behind the curve. The middle class screwing taking place is what this is about, and Dobbs gets it. Illegal immigration is about wholesale exploitation, of them and the workers who must compete with their low wages. WAKE UP liberals. The United Corporations of America have snookered you.

  10. James Turner wrote:

    When we listen to two opinions in an effort to be ‘fair and balanced” all we end up with is a third opinion. Every journalist, weather liberal/moderate/conservative filters the world and information through the prism of their experience and opinion. It’s stupid to pretend otherwise. The current “administration” has adopted a policy of open borders in an effort to appease corporations who want to keep wages and benefits low. And whorish corporate politicians who endorse this policy are mindlessly repeating the mantra of a (false) labor shortage. There is no labor shortage; there IS a shortage of people willing to work for chump change and no benefits like vacation or health insurance. Democrats are no better; trolling for votes from new citizens who (they believe) will constitute a left leaning voting block. Both parties have sold out the country for short term, selfish motives. Meanwhile, we are frisking grandmas waiting to board a plane and making people throw out shampoo and perfume in the name of “security”. One of the major unlearned lessons of 9/11 and the fiasco in Iraq is that terrorists are smarter than we think. Is it beyond the realm of possiblity that they could be sneaking people over the border into Texas and Arizona? Then on to Chicago, LA and New York. Do we want to take that chance all for the sake of a few votes and keeping wages and benefits low? I am about as liberal as you can get, but I do not apologize for my belief that people who want to live in this country (and learn English) are very welcome to do so, in a legal and controlled way. No other country in the WORLD would allow millions of foreign people to take up residence without permission and then consider their DEMAND to be granted citizenship. Can you visualize France or Japan posting official notices such as voting instructions in English because of the large number of Americans in those countries? Politicians from both sides plus the “administration” are nothing more than whores for the corporations running the show in this country. Example: Anyone notice that the Senate just killed a bill that would allow drugs made in Canada and New Zealand to be imported into this country? (The ‘rationale’ is that the ’safety’ of these drugs can’t be gauranteed. Yeah, people in those countries are always dropping dead because their medications aren’t safe.) Nevermind asking why these countries are able to manufacture these drugs and sell them here for less than domestically manufactured medication. Time for a third party!!

  11. sarabeth wrote:

    The Dobbs Brigade has turned out in force today, and very early in the morning too.

    We are, of course, honored.

  12. Don Alejandro wrote:

    “fair and balanced implies that all sides of an issue should get equal coverage, no matter how loony the premise they’re pushing”

    No, that is more like the FOX news interpretation of balance. True balance considers the weight (gravitas?) of each premise. One or two paid global warming denier shills on one side of the scale does not balance 99.99 percent of respectable scientists on the other side without Rupert Murdoch’s fat thumb tipping the scale while he butchers the truth.

  13. sarabeth wrote:

    Or: you don’t average evolution, creationism and intelligent design to come up with the truth of the matter.

  14. Dave wrote:

    I completely agree with many of the comments here, and it’s interesting that as a whole, they disagree with Stahl and SaraBeth, which shows that Americans (particularly liberals) are growing weary of the journalistic myth of impartiality. What’s more, they don’t see having this ideal as a goal as productive. We’ve watched as the mainstream media has, in an effort to be “fair and balanced,” given voice to lunacy and fallacy which has led to disasters such as the Iraq War and America ignoring global warming.

    Don’t forget, this concept is uniquely American, and in Europe they don’t have this same obsession. It’s taken for granted that a newspaper would have a certain point of view, and that’s ok.

    I’m not a fan of Dobbs and I think he’s pandering to people’s irrational fears, but this MSM obsession with amplifying all sides of a debate, even if they’re irrational, has fundamentally failed the American public.

  15. tom wrote:

    “No, that is more like the FOX news interpretation of balance. True balance considers the weight (gravitas?) of each premise. One or two paid global warming denier shills on one side of the scale does not balance 99.99 percent of respectable scientists on the other side without Rupert Murdoch’s fat thumb tipping the scale while he butchers the truth.”

    but as matt pointed out earlier, in politics, how much of what comes from the right is actually based in anything resembling a fact that can be proven? so either they start getting no coverage whatsoever because they have nothing to stand on, or you give them a shot to get their ideas out there. either way, i dont see how you can be fair and balanced when the facts behind the arguments are not fair and balanced. what should be reported is what happens, but the right will howl and cry about it. half of their power comes from the fact that news organizations cover anything that they do in order to appear fair and balanced.

  16. sarabeth wrote:

    Dave, I do believe you have not understood what I mean by “fair and balanced”.

    I certainly do not think giving equal weight to all points of view, no matter how lunatic, is fair and balanced. And I believe I have said so.

    It is indeed possible to be fair and balanced, in the true sense of the term. And we do need more of this in our journalism.

  17. matt wrote:

    It is indeed possible to be fair and balanced, in the true sense of the term.

    yes. just because fox news appropriates a phrase and perverts it, doesn’t mean the original meaning doesn’t hold.

    if an issue is presented in an actual fair and balanced manner, people will be smart enough to get the point. but presenting a global warming denier without objectively noting that no independent scientist believes global warming isn’t happening may be balanced, but it isn’t fair…

  18. sluggo wrote:

    I believe what Dobbs meant was 3000 cases of hammer toes.

  19. cee robin wrote:

    I am definitely a progressive. I’ve been watching Dobbs for a couple of years. He has talked more about outsourcing and insourcing than any so called reporters on TV period! He has been trying to tell the American people that we are being taken for a ride by corporate America. But I’m very aware of this , being from the auto industry….He’s been talking about all the companies that are taking our good paying jobs overseas and the companies that are providing services to move our jobs out of here. Corporate America and their media outlets are using the issue of illegal immigration to paint Dobbs as a racist, thereby putting a cloud over everything he has been saying about the fat cats…and if all of you who think that Dobbs is a racist , are not paying attention to what’s happening ! If you’re a true progressive, you’re paying attention, if not, you just another republican with no more brains than Bush….oh by the way, Michael Moore wrote several books on the same issues, and he’s one of the best Americans I know!

  20. matt wrote:

    If you’re a true progressive, you’re paying attention, if not, you just another republican with no more brains than Bush

    the mind boggles. dobbs goes from being one of the biggest shills for corporate america ever to ranting lunatic, and somehow he’s not only not racist, but more progressive than i am because he uses an hour of airtime to advocate an end to outsourcing?

    I am definitely a progressive.

    in a pigs eye.

  21. Vicki wrote:

    Lou Dobbs helped the Democrats get elected in 2006. He spends most of his shows pointing out the criminality of the Bush administration. I think he tries to make sure of the facts he reports. He cares about this country and is a loud voice for the people. I don’t always agree with him, but I do think he is more fair and balanced than the fox channel who claim they are.

  22. matt wrote:

    I do think he is more fair and balanced than the fox channel who claim they are.

    damning with faint praise.

  23. Bansidh wrote:

    If you are looking for some news that is actually ..news, try Democracy Now .Try Mosaic, Liberty News Watch LINK TV or Free Speech TV and get some different viewpoints

  24. Roland Buck wrote:

    Lou Dobbs is one of the best advocates of American working people on television. He has been pointing out that there is a class war going on against working Americans, an important issue that the mainstream media has largely ignored. He does not get everything right and his attitude toward illegal immigrants who have made their homes here and have, with the one exception of entering the country illegaly, is mean spirited. But he is right that the illegal immigration is one of the things that have hurt the standard of living of working Americans.

  25. Roland Buck wrote:

    OOops! I left out some words in one of the sentences. That should be

    He does not get everything right and his attitude toward illegal immigrants who have made their homes here and have, with the one exception of entering the country illegaly, played by the rules is mean spirited.

  26. matt wrote:

    his attitude toward illegal immigrants who have made their homes here and have, with the one exception of entering the country illegaly, played by the rules is mean spirited.

    take this away, and his show could fit into the commercial break between two other shows.

  27. Ricardo wrote:

    When it comes to reporting facts, there is no difference between CNN and FOX. They both lie.

  28. John Muncie wrote:

    Lou Dobbs is as much a windbag as O’Reilly on Fox, but he deals with guests who disagree with him much more fairly and intelligently. Dobbs is not perfect, but he provides more current, valid information about the things going wrong for this country than any other commentator, and much more than those giddy guys on Fox. He is more of a protagonist in some ways than a commentator. If his critics were a little more honest. they would have to agree you find out more about the screwing the people are getting from Congress and the White House than from any other so-called news broadcast. Most of the other channels provide a barrage of opinions amid gales of chuckling and jokes. Take a deep breath and listen to Dobbs; it’ll do you some good.

  29. matt wrote:

    he deals with guests who disagree with him much more fairly and intelligently.

    intelligently? probably. fairly? no. he talks over his guests just as much as o’reilly does, and routinely shouts down people who are in more of a position to know.

    he provides more current, valid information about the things going wrong for this country than any other commentator, and much more than those giddy guys on Fox.

    that’s some faint praise.

    If his critics were a little more honest. they would have to agree you find out more about the screwing the people are getting from Congress and the White House than from any other so-called news broadcast.

    dobbs does have the balls to call out corporations, i’ll give him that. but his YEARS of shilling for them prior to his re-birth cancel that out for the most part. and there are plenty of better places to find out about what’s wrong with this country. maybe not on tv, but so what?

    Take a deep breath and listen to Dobbs; it’ll do you some good.

    how exactly? what can he tell me that i can’t read by less xenophobic writers online? what other gross distortions has he committed and then will refuse to correct? he doesn’t have the credibility at this point, and doesn’t seem to care.

    do you not grant that?

  30. sarabeth wrote:

    there are plenty of better places to find out about what’s wrong with this country. maybe not on tv,

    just on TV, there’s Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann or Stephen Colbert, any of whom whups Lou Dobbs’ ass forty ways to Friday, every day of the week, when it comes to telling it like it is.

    (aside to matt: there’s no reasoning with the Dobbs Brigade. he doesn’t have the credibility, and he doesn’t care mainly because they don’t care)

  31. John Muncie wrote:

    Cetainly glad to see so many sitting up and taking nourishment!

  32. matt wrote:

    i made an honest attempt to engage you here. unless you can do better than this, don’t bother posting again.

  33. John Muncie wrote:

    Sorry, didn’t mean to upset delicate sensitivities. I understand the importance a person’s prior activities may have in assessing his current behavior; on the other hand, it is sometimes well to view a person by his current efforts. I am not a member of any brigade; I just happen to think that in the list of major TV commentators available, Dobbs has been doing a service. Some of you apparently know where or how to access more esoteric commentators. Good for you. Enjoy!

  34. sarabeth wrote:

    more esoteric commentators??

    and stop trying to pretend that matt’s main objection to dobbs was his previous shilling for corporations rather than his current behavior, namely the rampant zenophobia and the cavalier attitude to facts and truth.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*