Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lou Dobbs, Immigrant-Bashing Host, Eyes Next Move
TV host Lou Dobbs abruptly quit his CNN program yesterday, bringing a sudden end to a television program most notable for its remarkably one-sided presentation of immigration issues.
Since 2003, Dobbs has regularly used his CNN platform to issue misleading and alarmist warnings about the threats posed by undocumented immigrants. Dobbs has spoken of an "army of invaders" scheming to reannex parts of the southwestern U.S. to Mexico (3/31/06), claimed that "illegal alien smugglers and drug traffickers are on the verge of ruining some of our national treasures" (11/19/03) and declared that "the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans" (4/14/05).
Repeated segments on Dobbs' show were devoted to "illegal aliens" getting free medical care (10/1/03), putting their children in schools (10/2/03), committing sex crimes (10/30/03), getting breaks on college tuition (10/22/03), clogging up the federal prison system (11/4/03) and "flooding across our borders in some cases carrying dangerous diseases" (11/20/03). More recently, Dobbs (3/9/09) promoted a misleading report that suggested hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants would get jobs due to the government stimulus program.
Indeed, he seemed almost eager to misrepresent statistics in order to further his anti-immigrant agenda. Dobbs was famously challenged by CBS host Lesley Stahl (5/6/07) about his erroneous suggestion (4/14/05) that immigrants were causing an alarming increase in leprosy in the United States. Dobbs' remarkable response--"If we reported it, it's a fact"--was just as incorrect as his original reporting (which, it turned out, was based on inaccurate numbers peddled by a far-right anti-immigrant activist--FAIR Action Alert, 5/11/07).
While that incident received significant attention, it was certainly not the only time Dobbs' program misrepresented reality. FAIR's magazine Extra! (1-2/04) noted that Dobbs distorted a study of the costs and benefits of immigration, turning the study's finding of a small economic benefit into a multi-billion dollar cost to the nation's economy. Dobbs also inflated the proportion of the prison population believed to be undocumented immigrants (New York Times, 5/30/07) and recently garbled a CNN poll on immigration to argue that "most" Americans "want illegal immigrants now in the country to leave" (10/22/09; FAIR Blog, 10/23/09).
The show was a regular platform for a variety of anti-immigration advocacy groups. Dobbs (5/23/06) even went so far as to use an on-screen graphic from the white supremacist Council of Concerned Citizens in a report fanning fears about Mexican plans to invade the Southwest (Huffington Post, 5/24/06). Dobbs did not leave the overheated rhetoric to his guests, though. Before a Republican presidential debate (11/28/07), he called immigration advocates "misguided abject fools" who are "working to subvert the will of the majority of the people of this country."
Responding to a reporter's comment about how the governor of Arizona "supports comprehensive immigration reform, including a guest worker program," Dobbs responded (4/19/06): "All I can say to that is lah-dee-dah. The idea that the governor has taken such a superior view over the poor, humble residents of her state, is there any kind of--is there any way in which they might turn out at the polls to express their grievances?" Environmental groups opposed to building a border fence between the U.S. and Mexico were "complete idiots" (5/19/08). Immigrants' rights protests were regularly derided (5/1/08): "They ignore the fundamental values of the nation and demand an end to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. We'll have complete coverage of this travesty."
Such language is unsurprising, since there was never any pretense of balance to Dobbs' show. As he put it to CNN host Howard Kurtz (4/2/06): "I'm not interested--are you interested in six or seven views, or are you interested in the truth? Because that's what I'm interested in; that's what my viewers are interested in." Declining to present contrasting views because they conflict with one's own definition of "truth" is not exactly the approach they teach in journalism school, of course. As reported by Daphne Eviatar in the Nation (8/28/06), some CNN reporters were concerned by the show's techniques: Another former CNN news staffer from an overseas bureau said (also on condition of anonymity) that whenever Dobbs' producers contacted the bureau for stories, "they would request stories that would fit their agenda.... We wanted to provide a balanced view. But people on Dobbs' show would look at the script and ask for changes. If we gave too much of a balanced view, they would kill the story." Former senior staffers said that Dobbs would search out stories that supported his anti-immigrant agenda. As one put it, "He's assembled correspondents who feel beholden to him. They are given the line on the story and told how to assemble it in his partisan manner before they're sent out to do the story."
One of Dobbs' standard defenses over the years has been that his concern is illegal immigration, not legal immigration. But Dobbs' show blurred that distinction a number of times. Dobbs introduced one report (11/4/03) about "illegal aliens, those noncitizens taking up a third of the cells in our federal penitentiaries." The ensuing report noted that there was no way of knowing how many prisoners were actually illegal.
In 2003, Dobbs (9/23/03) expressed outrage over a group of immigrants' rights activists: "People who have not respected immigration laws in this country are now demanding equal treatment under the law." A week later (9/30/03), Dobbs acknowledged that the activists he was criticizing were not, in fact, lawbreakers. In 2008, Dobbs (1/16/08) attacked the campaign activities of one Nevada union, complaining that "as many as half of the union's members are illegal aliens." Actually, the union had reported that about half of its members were immigrants.
It should be noted that Dobbs' troubling record of distortion is not limited to immigration. He has featured one-sided discussions on climate change (12/18/08, 1/5/09) and issued nonsensical complaints about the White House economic stimulus plan (Extra!, 4/09). Dobbs was one of many figures in the corporate media to cheer a premature Iraq War victory ("Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters"--4/14/03), and most recently caused a stir (Associated Press, 8/3/09) by giving airtime to "birther" guests to advance the discredited notion that Barack Obama is not actually a U.S. citizen.
In his final CNN broadcast (11/12/09), Dobbs suggested that he would continue in the public arena in some fashion: "Some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day." Dobbs also alluded to "the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C."
Dobbs' propagandistic approach to journalism was an embarrassment that CNN seemed more than willing to tolerate as long as his ratings were high (Extra!, 5-6/06); with much of the cultural anxiety formerly going into the anti-immigration movement now focused on the Tea Party movement associated with Glenn Beck, Dobbs' viewership has been in a prolonged slump (New York Observer, 7/30/09), so it's not too surprising to find him looking for a new home. CNN president Jonathan Klein once told the New York Times (3/29/06): "Lou's show is not a harbinger of things to come at CNN. He is sui generis, one of a kind." One can only hope.
- Posted in
54 Comments so far
Show AllWas this written by a high school student? Those parenthetical citations are very distracting from reading the article. I mean, this is one way to write a term paper for class, but that's different than an online article, where you can embed hyperlinks as citations.
Good poiint Zmann,
But what really bugs me is who exactly wrote this article? FAIR is not a person. This is why I cancelled my subscriptions to newspapers like USA today, because they quit telling you who wrote the article. "Just trust us, this is the truth". "FAIR" complains bitterly about Dobbs, but at least Lou was responsible for the content of his show and you knew who he was. How can I complain to the editor to get a nimrod fired if somebody won't be responsible for the content? So this article is not credible to me. I file corporate claims in the roundfile also, since they never cite who made the claim.
I agree with the other poster; Lou Dobbs is one strange animal. I never could figure him out either.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
The entire organisation is responsible for the article.
""FAIR" complains bitterly about Dobbs, but at least Lou was responsible for the content of his show and you knew who he was. How can I complain to the editor to get a nimrod fired if somebody won't be responsible for the content? So this article is not credible to me"
Your argument is that some article is "credible" if there is an individual name tagged to it? So, Dobbs claims are "credible"?
Bingo rfloh,
Lou Dobbs show was credible and accountable for many years. If he told falsehoods, you can bet Lou Dobbs name was at the top of the lawsuit or at least his reputation went down the tubes.. Apparently, CNN bowed to pressure to get rid of him. That's how it's supposed to work in professional journalism. But about a decade ago, so-called "professional journalists" quit revealing their identity. Some even took bribes from the Bush Administration to write pro war articles. You had to sue the owners to find out who the editors and authors were. When Ralph Nader writes a piece, you can bet he's out front that he wrote it or started it. Same for Dobbs. But FAIR? FAIR could have been bought by George Bush for all I know as revenge for Lou Dobbs criticizing him all the time.
Not good enough. I want a name standing behind the article. Even some of the wingnuts like Oreily and Shaun Insanity sign their distortions. This way, I can change the channel immediately or skip their books when I see their fascist faces on the book jacket. But signing your report or article as just a fictitious entity like CBS news or PNAC or FAIR or USArmy means I can't complain when huge distortions are trumpeted like WMD's. What am I supposed to do? Try to get rid of the whole organization? If it was an individual who is signing the propaganda piece instead of a whole organization, I can appeal to the owners to quit running this nut's crap or I will boycott the publication running it, boycott the advertisers or join those who want it held accountable in a legal action.
The reason I use CD as my primary news source is that up to now, all their submissions have, by and large, been signed by a real person. It DOESN'T MEAN the information is correct, just that any historic bias by that person is instantly revealed considering his past submissions. Standing behind the story DOES NOT MEAN IT'S CREDIBLE. But not telling us who wrote it means you are not a believable entity.
Most of us have the same problem with the Fortune 500 businesses. You can never know who you're talking to on the phone. No one's accountable if they wrong you severely. Many call centers will just hang up on you when you ask to talk to a supervisor. Or they lie and say: "she's not here right now." It's an epidemic of societal dishonesty imho.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"But about a decade ago, so-called "professional journalists" quit revealing their identity. "
Actually, traditionally, in the past news articles were NOT tagged with the author's names. It has only been in recent times, the last few decades that authors get credit for their articles.
"Try to get rid of the whole organization? If it was an individual who is signing the propaganda piece instead of a whole organization, I can appeal to the owners to quit running this nut's crap or I will boycott the publication running it, boycott the advertisers or join those who want it held accountable in a legal action."
It is AN individual, or several individuals who are ultimately responsible for articles in papers, for news programs on tv programs. The owners. Getting the nut sacked changes nothing, if they simply get another nut to spout the same stuff.
"Lou Dobbs show was credible and accountable for many years. If he told falsehoods, you can bet Lou Dobbs name was at the top of the lawsuit or at least his reputation went down the tubes"
"When Ralph Nader writes a piece, you can bet he's out front that he wrote it or started it. Same for Dobbs."
So you're basically saying that if Colin Powell or Condi Rice claims that Iraq had WMD, their claims are "credible" because they individually put their names behind those claims?
How about judging an article according to its' merits, instead of who wrote it?
"his way, I can change the channel immediately or skip their books when I see their fascist faces on the book jacket. But signing your report or article as just a fictitious entity like CBS news or PNAC or FAIR or USArmy means I can't complain when huge distortions are trumpeted like WMD's."
Why can't you do this with articles that aren't tagged by the bylines of individual authors?
"So you're basically saying that if Colin Powell or Condi Rice claims that Iraq had WMD, their claims are "credible" because they individually put their names behind those claims?"
No, I never said that. Colin Powell and Condi Rice were not Journalists. They were public figures lying about WMD's. But as a unenlightened citizen, I used to rely on the media to tell me the truth. In this case, the MSM journos not only didn't reveal their names, but they did no investigative legwork to verify the claims made. And it turned out their stories were false. Iraq had no WMD's. Since nobody signed their names to those stories, I have to conclude that the entire corporate-owned MSM is untrustworthy.
"How about judging an article according to its' merits, instead of who wrote it?"
Obviously, you need both. Everybody who majors in science knows that the source of the data is just as important as the data itself. Otherwise the claims made are not at all credible. This does not mean they are in fact true. Just that the source is trackable and the claims made can be independently verified by peers.
It really surprises me, that this basic concept of accountability can be such a stumbling block for some citizens.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
This is Fairs contact page
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=105
I use to love watching Lou Dobbs most nights but in the last year or so his passion for illegal immagration was a out of control, lots of talk but no solutions.
Good article. Hyperlinks can be a problem for those with old computers and those on slow dial-up.
Dobbs and the others who spread hate-speech have had a negative impact - games and e-mails being circulated talking about shooting immigrants. Dobbs home area of Hazleton PA has had major problems of violence against anyone who is a bit different or has 'tan' skin. Reminds me of Germany in the 30s. It is time to expose the hate mongers. There is no such thing as an 'illegal' person - just persons whose mothers happened to be in another country at the time of their birth.
I never could figure that guy out...
matthew loughran
i heard an interview he did on democracy now not long ago with amy goodmand and dobbs just showed what a pompous, ignorant ahole he is.
somehow he thinks he some great journalist also. not even close. juan and amy are journalists. dobbs is a raving right wing clown like bill o'reilly and alot of other winners on fox and other MSM outlets.
what he really needed was kick in his fat pompous ass just to bring him back to reality and to make up for the many people he has hurt with his bs.
I did not like Lou Dobbs' views on "illegals" He was more than offensive....Yet being offensive is protected speech. I listen to Howard Stern every morning, and people find him to be detestable as well.
Yet, what is even worse than Lou Dobbs?
CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP!
CENSORSHIP IS MORE HARMFUL TO FREEDOM THAN A DIMWIT LIKE LOU DOBBS WHO HAD VERY FEW VIEWERS ON HIS LAME SHOW!
Are objective journalistic standards censorship now? CNN sells itself as a straight news organization, yet Dobbs was offering nothing but his opinions.
That's also why Fox News is not an actual news organization.
READ CAREFULLY---AGAIN:
I did not like Lou Dobbs' views on "illegals" He was more than offensive....Yet being offensive is protected speech. I listen to Howard Stern every morning, and people find him to be detestable as well.
Yet, what is even worse than Lou Dobbs?
CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP!
CENSORSHIP IS MORE HARMFUL TO FREEDOM THAN A DIMWIT LIKE LOU DOBBS WHO HAD VERY FEW VIEWERS ON HIS LAME SHOW!
IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER FOX IS A "REAL NEWS NETWORK" OR NOT.....
I do not find Ed Schultz all that credible and could sit there and poke all kinds of holes in his presentation as well as others.
I am a Leftist but I do not suck-up to anyone who just claims to be.
You should be ashamed of yourself in supporting Censorship as well....These people you don't like on the "right" are not going away either. That is wishful thinking. The progressives need to come up with better solutions and methods other than figuring how to silence its political adversaries.
Obsessing over the TV and Cable TV for that matter is also idiotic and childish. I do not find most of those programs to be all that helpful or informative anyway. I find way too many holes in the stories even on MSNBC than should be the case. Neither Olbermann nor Maddow have Full Editorial control over their shows meaning that the network dictates a lot more of their own GE Corporate stories doting on the military than you think.
Maybe you should read my post carefully again too.
Dobbs was not reporting, he was engaging in political advocacy by pushing his own opinions.
That is not news reporting.
Plain and simple.
Many want to castigate Dobbs on his view of illegal immigration, but don't give him credit for his stand against NAFTA. There are lots of ways to 'push opinions,' several of them sneaky, as in one-sided reporting. Dobbs invited those who disagreed with him to come and debate. In a way, he did a lot to give the 'other side' exposure it would not ordinarily receive. Anyone watching Dobbs with half a brain knew they were HIS views; he even gave away his book on the show. I did not personally agree with Dobbs on many of his stands, but he seemed more sincere than most, and I don't think he deserves to be demonized. Dobbs did not hide that the fact he was disturbed by much of what was occurring during the Bush reign. He interviewed Ted Turner and exposed where he stood on many issues. I learned a lot from that interview, and appreciated him giving Nader--yes Ralph Nader--a say as well.
And the several months he spent giving a platform to the insane birthers?
Why should CNN pay Lou Dobbs to say something they don't want him to say?
No one has a right to be PAID to say whatever they want. No one has a right to have someone else broadcast their views for them.
If Lou Dobbs has a right not just to be PAID to articulate his views, but also to have CNN broadcast his views for him, why not you? Why not everyone on this thread? Why ont everyone in the world?
You think that someone working at a grocery store, or a coffee shop, or in an office job isn't going to be fired if s/he starts spouting her / his religious / political viewpoints to everyone, while at work?
Free speech isn't what Sarah Palin, or you, think that it is.
Now maybe you believe that everyone does have a right to be paid to say whatever they want, and have someone else broadcast those views for them; but that situation has NEVER ever been the case; Lou Dobb's speech while working for CNN is NOT "protected speech". Being offensive while working for someone is NOT "protected speech".
Exactly. It drives me crazy when people claim that anyone in the media can say anything they want during their broadcasts due to free speech.
So it's their right to have a free platform to give their opinions to millions of people? Then where is my TV or radio show? It would be my right to have one too, isn't it?
Nope. It's a privilege. Plus, those in the media have certain responsibilities that private citizens do not. Unfortunately, they rarely live up to those responsibilities.
That's a passionate defense of corporate media's "right" to fire any journalist who declines to present the corporate point of view. Hands off Big Pharma, for example. They're a big advertiser! Journalism is supposed to be independent. Ever hear of it?
Journalism has NEVER been independent. True journalistic independence rarely ever existed, and rarely exists today. News owners own news outlet so that they, the owners can have a platform to spread their views. Journalists can be independentif they own their own news outlet, like say the French paper Le Monde Diplomatique.
Would YOU pay someone like Glenn Beck to say whatever he wants, AND provide him with the platform, the newspaper column, the TV show, the radio show to spread those views? If no, why not? What about his right to speech and independence? What about journalistic independence then? Would you pay me to spread my views? Everyone else on this thread? Why not?
Good night, and good luck.
I never heard Dobbs bash Immigrants. He has a big problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS as do most Americans.
Thing is, he had often used "immigrants" as shorthand for "illegal immigrants" which, speaking as a legal immigrant, is quite obnoxious. I sure haven't gone through so much bureaucratic bullcrap to be met with his sort of xenophobic garbage about me coming in to steal all of your glorious minimum-wage jobs. There never seemed to be any differentiation between illegal immigrants and folks like me who actually do the right thing and are tied up in red tape for anywhere up to 10 years waiting to actually contribute something to the country. Granted, I was not a regular viewer, I'm merely going from what I saw when I did catch his show.
He might only have a problem with illegal immigrants, and it's not necessarily wrong to have a problem with illegal immigrants, but it's wrong to lump all immigrants in together as some sort of illiterate brown-skinned job-stealing criminal monstrosity. Which is what I felt he was doing, consciously or not.
Dobbs is married to an immigrant. I did not get that he was anti-immigrant. Though his wife (who is Hispanic) might disagree. I agreed with Dobbs concerning NAFTA and GATT, and he wasn't pro Bush. However, once Obama got elected I didn't care for his program. Seems like he started leaning more to the right again. Another thing I didn't like with him is that the only important class was the middle class, hardly ever any sympathy for the poor.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STARTED IN 1492!!! IF YOU ARE NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN, THEN SHUT THE F$%K UP
What immigration laws were being violated? What territorial boundaries were violated in 1492 here in what would be the US?
Right. The humans who were living in the North American continent at the time welcomed all the European settlers, and said "take whatever land you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. It is all for you".
The natural law of not stealing land that is not yours.
Not all Native Americans seem to be in favor of illegal immigration:
"Tribal members live in fear for the safety of their families and their properties. Homes are broken into by those desperate for food, water and shelter.
The 28,000–member Nation fights hoards of illegal immigrant [illegal alien] drug and human traffickers, robbers, and rapists."
See:
Illegal Immigrants Devastate the Tohono Indian Reservation
http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/483622-illegal-immigration-now-hitting-native-ameri...
From your post, does that mean you'd censor anyone else's point of view? You should drop the attitude.
Well, yes, Native Americans are not in favour of illegal immigrants, such as you.
I do not think we much to say to one another in general, no?
He's a strange animal because he doesn't really stand for anything except his own success as a media professional, and has been willing to shift his opinions over the years to best serve his ratings. If the overall mood of this country suddenly turned to support for atheism, Dobbs would emerge as a leading advocate for atheism.
I stopped watching Lou Dobbs long ago. His incessant focus on illegal immigration and bashing illegal immigrants was a real turn-off.
A global system of exploitation promotes a rush to the bottom and economic slavery results, not surprisingly, in people wanting to go where they can find better conditions.
If we make the world a better place for all, there won't be such an incentive for people to choose one place over another. People should be able to travel and live where they wish.
--Andy
Why is Dobbs obsessed with illegal immigration. Perhaps it could result from his upset at minorities gradually becoming a majority.
I have mixed thoughts about Dobbs. There's plenty to like him for and plenty to hate him for. He used to stand for the working class but only so far. I'd have no trouble foaming at the mouth over outsourcing and the immigration mess but when I learned what Indians and Mexicans actually went through, I had a change of heart. I don't support outsourcing or illegal immigration for illegal labor but where was the outrage when outsourced workers were being worked to death? When I look at Indian, Japanese, and Chinese shows and news over the Internet, I see things looking worse. Nowhere did Lou Dobbs mention the dirty secrets of outsourcing and "free trade". Some American worker loses his job or his unable to run a product business because his job got shipped for cheaps or some "free trade" agreement made "cheap" imports possible to crush his small business. Lou Dobbs can talk about call centers and immigrants crossing the border but that's only a tiny fraction of what is wrong with our corporate system. Lou Dobbs failed to touch the big picture and his obsession with subtle racism gone too far is what made him exit. The Latino groups weren't the major players. Lou Dobbs could have motivated people into fighting back rather than foaming all day about it. This should be an invaluable lesson to learn.
Seems Lou Globbs, is just a typical PIG. Loves Mexican food and Mexican women. Just hates Mexicans.
(LOL)
I suppose that applies to Nader too--Minus Mexican women and food. Not everyone who disagrees with your point of view is a 'pig.' Do you realize such attacks on others with respect to name-calling and labeling amounts to a kind of censorship as well? What if the government suddenly allowed unfettered immigration and enacted a new payroll tax for the support and aid of it, with the businesses who profit from the labor actually getting 'credits' for hiring them? That's not as absurd as it may sound; it's what is presently happening. Border states' social services are being stressed and having to increase taxes to maintain services for many new individuals. It's much like the supplementation of Wall Mart for its lack of employee health care, which essentially amounts to welfare for businesses who profit from the cheap labor. To me it seems hypocritical to be sympathetic to illegals, on the one hand, and completely ignore their exploitation by the business community on the other, who are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank.
No it isn't what is happening. You might want to check in a dictionary what the meaning of "unfettered" means.
"To me it seems hypocritical to be sympathetic to illegals, on the one hand, and completely ignore their exploitation by the business community on the other, who are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank."
To me, it seems hypocritical to want to emphasise their exploitation, while ignoring that that exploitation is happening because they are illegal.
"No it isn't what is happening. You might want to check in a dictionary what the meaning of "unfettered" means."
First, let's get the fact that we do not care for one another out of the way--okay?
Now take a deep breath and relax, we can set that aside to discuss the issues. Okay, again?
Good. I did not use the word incorrectly, but was saying that there are many who seem to be pushing for unfettered access. Gladly, it is not the present state of affairs. The issue of exploitation is interrelated with illegal status, no? (I'm glad to see I finally got your attention here) :-)
You may be for 'open borders,' but I do not think that you and many others who are like-minded are ready to address the consequences and ramifications of this. I am not alone in this, here is what Ralph Nader is quoted as saying:
"We cannot have open borders. That’s a totally absurd proposition. It would depress wages here enormously, and tens of millions of people from all levels, including scientists and workers, would be pouring into this country."
Does this make him a bigot, anti-latino, or whatever, and would you have him kicked out because he is not a native American?
If you don't mind my saying so, it does not seem to me that you can see anything beyond your own narrow point of view. And I read your seething animosity loud and clear. That kind of attitude is not justifiable, whether it comes from the right wing or the left.
"I'm not interested--are you interested in six or seven views, or are you interested in the truth? Because that's what I'm interested in; that's what my viewers are interested in."
Personally I am interested in six or seven views...if I wanted to listen to an arrogant blowhard stroke his own ego I would watch any number of shows on the Fox Propoganda show.
I hear he is going to be the new Grand Imperial Wizard for Fox and Friends
Bye Lou, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Nanoo
I'm going to miss Lou Dobbs. If he was biased in his opinions, so what, as they all are.
In the real world presently, people can't just go and live where ever they want without breaking the law. I'd get the fuck out of the USA if it was that easy.
In the US of 2009 (as in Weimar Germany of the 20's and early 30's) there will always be room (and a need) for Lou Dobbs and others of his ilk. If you look closely and you can see Mitt Romney and other wanna-be Nazi's polishing up their hob-nail boots and SS collar pins.
Poet
Love or hate Dobbs, he has to be admired for speaking for himself. I never got the impression that he was simply a mouthpiece for a corporation. Lou was clearly unhappy with the direction of the country under the Bush Administration. Lou's perspective on immigration was no doubt molded by his experience with his marriage to an immigrant. Believe it or not, many legal immigrants are strongly opposed to giving amnesty to those who enter the country illegally. Even though they may hate the immigration process, they understand the need for one. Lou pointed out that Mexico is working overtime (with many 'embassies' across the county) to send its poorest citizens to the US. This is understandable considering that the money they send back to Mexico accounts for almost half of their economy. Lou also pointed out the powerful Chamber of Commerce was pro-amnesty in support of businesses who wanted the cheap labor; they support lower wages across the board (meaning higher profits for the businesses the represent). The battle cry has been for 'those jobs Americans do not want to do,' but it neglects to add, 'for the low wages proffered.' Another proponent of amnesty is the Catholic Church, a notorious exploiter of the poor in many countries. Strange bedfellows indeed.
In my view it is hypocritical (or at least disingenuous) to say we care for illegal immigrants, while looking the other way as their desperation is exploited for the profit of the business community. I think we ALL lose in this kind of exploitative climate.
Don't know what you think about Ralph Nader, but here's what he says about open borders:
"We cannot have open borders. That’s a totally absurd proposition. It would depress wages here enormously, and tens of millions of people from all levels, including scientists and workers, would be pouring into this country."
In view of some who post here that would make him a racist or bigot as well.
Over the years FAIR has been wrong on a few issues, and this is certainly one of them. I'm a long time subscriber to their publication, EXTRA!, and generally think highly of it. Unfortunately, intentional misrepresentation and lazy analysis concerning a few issues undercuts their overall credibility.
A few of the distortions in this report:
* [Dobbs'] "anti-immigrant agenda"
FAIR intentionally and knowingly confuses legal immigration with illegal-migrant recruitment by illegal employers. See a transcript of (broadcast clips) of some of Dobbs' comments on the subject(s) at the bottom of this post.
* "his erroneous suggestion (4/14/05) that immigrants were causing an alarming increase in leprosy in the United States"
FAIR was criticized for getting this wrong when they first reported it, yet they repeat it again now. Turns out, there is a big increase in leprosy in the U.S. and it is the result of people who have come here from other countries.
* "whenever Dobbs' producers contacted the bureau for stories, "they would request stories that would fit their agenda...."
Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow do the same thing at MSNBC. Thankfully.
* "If we gave too much of a balanced view, they would kill the story"
Columbia Journalism Review and others have long criticized "balanced" reporting as the worst kind of journalism. It's what lazy reporters produce when they don't understand what they're writing about, and it's often an excuse for pimping corporate advertisers' points of view. e.g. Balanced journalism gave the tobacco industry PR arm, The Tobacco Institute, a platform for their propaganda for many years by balancing every story about the harm from smoking with the opposing point of view that "there's no evidence" for such a link. Today, balanced journalism provides the same platform for Big Carbon's climate change denials.
* Dobbs' troubling record of distortion is not limited to immigration.
Dobbs had a troubling record of opinion, not distortion. Personally, I disagreed with probably 40% of everything he opined on his program. I often didn't like his militancy, for example. (Yet, he recently brought on Matthew Hoh, former Marine captain and Foreign Service official, as a guest, and allowed him uninterrupted time to state his view that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan does more harm than good, and that our troops should be withdrawn. Dobbs was respectful and did not disagree with Hoh.)
Dobbs also had some correct opinions on issues leftists (supposedly) care deeply about. He consistently and strenuously criticized free-trade, globalism, NAFTA, corporate outsourcing of U.S. jobs, falling wages and benefits, and the destruction of the middle class. He frequently railed against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, perhaps the biggest enemy of labor in the U.S.
As a trained economist, he often brought on corporate and political defenders of those policies and berated them mercilessly. You don't find that anywhere else in corporate television, even MSNBC. On many such issues, Dobbs' opinions were akin to those of Joseph Stiglitz and Ralph Nader.
Here is the transcript I mentioned above:
_________________________________________
Dobbs: The Truth About Immigration
Nov-13-2009
Ethnocentric special interest groups often mischaracterize Lou's position on illegal immigration. The left routinely ignores the context of everything Lou has said about illegal immigrants. So here's the truth about what the left does not want you to hear: Listen to Lou's record on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants.
[Audio at Google's cache of LouDobbs.com]
A few examples [actual recordings from his broadcasts]:
"I've said for some time that the only rational actor in this entire immigration crisis, illegal immigration crisis, is the illegal alien, trying to benefit himself, herself and better their lives. But illegal employer is acting against the national interests, acting against the law in every respect. How can we get to the employer who is so shamelessly exploiting the illegal alien and so shamelessly flaunting U.S. law?"
"I have great respect for the people who make up the preponderance of the illegal alien population in our country, that is Mexican migrant workers."
"I'm absolutely one of the most passionate opponents of illegal immigration, but I've also made it very clear I'm also one of those who respects most the illegal aliens, I've described them on numerous occasions as the only
rational actor in this crisis."
"For the record, I am absolutely supportive of legal immigration. In fact, I favor even higher levels of legal immigration when it suits public policy. Let me repeat -- we are the most welcoming nation in the world for immigrants and I've consistently called for an increase in legal immigration when warranted."
"I think I'm the only one on this panel who's actually worked with migrant workers in the fields, with beans, potatoes, hay in my youth. I know them to be good and decent people."
"You've heard me say time and time again that the only rational actor in this is the illegal alien trying to improve his or her life. You've heard me say time and time again that the illegal employer of the illegal alien deserves the greatest sanctions in this mess."
"The broadcast has repeatedly stressed the need to solve this nation's massive illegal alien crisis. It has always, this broadcast, been a strong supporter of legal, fair, humane immigration policies."
Isn't it funny how cowardly liars and fools leave out all of these statements over the past six years ... as they attack me. If you have any doubt that we are in a struggle for the soul of this nation, a day's reading of those left-wing activists' blogs and statements will show you who's really fanning the flames of hate.
______________________
Isn't it interesting how easily people march in step when told by some group to condemn some individual or other group? It becomes clear that many think what they are TOLD to think, even if it's only based on hearsay.
It's both interesting and shameful. As a long-time leftist, I used to scoff when I heard right-wingers talk about "knee-jerk liberals." But, in recent years I've come to understand that such people do indeed exist, and some of them are posting here.
Lou Dobbs was a overblown demagogic windbag that always fell back on fake outrage rather then sound argument to prove his points. How many times have I slipped by his show only to hear his pontifications on the brown peril from south of the border that is destroying are great "white" country while mostly ignoring the corporate rat hole: Washington D.C.?
He loved to invoke god, in "Good God, what are they thinking.... blah, blah, blah...." or some such other nonsense. Like most crypto Nazis he had a penchant for picking on the weak, poor, and generally disenfranchised - having never met a wetback he won't secretly love to waterboard all the way back across the real Real-Grande.
Always felt sorry for his subordinates as they got such opinionated, leading questions from him that their response could be little more then a head nod in agreement and paraphrase of what he had just said. Kind of like the godfather Corleone saying: "He Louie, don't you think we should kill this guy?"
Lastly there's his business background (didn't he slime in from the business channel?) with all the simplistic answers for everything beings some type of profit driven mentality.