One of the more interesting CNN personalities is Lous Dobbs, who hosts Lou Dobbs Tonight. Early on, I had the guy pegged as a liberal progressive as he wrote a book about the war on the middle class and hosted a forum by the same title. The Onion poked fun at Dobbs's isolationist, doom and gloom assessment of the economy by featuring a hilarious satirical article titled Lou Dobbs hosts Moneyline from window ledge. (Seriously, click on the link and see his image on the ledge, it's a kill.) These observations are only partially correct though, it appears that he is a Buchanan isolationist type with anti-immigrant fervor. He has referenced the paranoid contention of a hemispheric highway. and routinely makes immigration the primary topic of his show. Lately though, Dobbs's remarks on immigration and disease have been proven wrong.

1.)Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

2.)Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mischaracterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need jouranlists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currenlty have now?

3.)How does Dobbs stack up against other commentator "attack dog" journalists(using the "j" word very lightly) such as Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity?

1.)Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

Well, I love what he's saying and I happen to agree with his stance on illegal immigration. If it's his personal agenda, it may also be the agenda of many others, myself included. Here's a news flash: everyone has an agenda, especially the liberals pushing for unlimited and neverending illegal immigration.

2.)Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mischaracterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need jouranlists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currenlty have now?

That's a crock to call him out as if he stands alone in a world of ethical and unbiased journalism. The world of news is based on delivering a story with a slant, whatever side it falls on. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. You can go to the Middle East and film fighting. If you are also able to catch the thousands of years of religious rivalry and the nuances of humanity, then maybe you'll have an unbiased picture.

3.)How does Dobbs stack up against other commentator "attack dog" journalists(using the "j" word very lightly) such as Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity?

I think he's a more subtle and sensible attack dog who seems to give his audience the benefit of the doubt that they have common sense as opposed to O'Reilly, who rants like a high school teacher to a bunch of ingnorant students.

I agree- even the slant of your own post "If you are also able to catch the thousands of years of religious rivalry- Islam is what, about 1300 years old or so- and have only had any problem with the Jews since around, oh 1917 at the eariliest.

But we all hear that repeated over and over, and believe it ourselves.

Take the phrase you hear "Reagan beat the Soviets in the cold war"- and then ask yourself- where did you research that and how did you come to that belief?

9 times out of 10- you just can't remember where you came up with that stuff-

the american media, to me, is neither conservative nor liberal- it is America-centric- as it can only be, and the news is slanted ALWAYS in our favor.

1.)Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

No such things as an objective journalist. Could some improve on their objectivity? Most definately. Could Dobbs? Probably.

2.)Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mischaracterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need jouranlists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currenlty have now?

Yes, this incident is a fine example. He should have corrected himself earlier on. Now, it is a matter of journalistic pride that prevents him from coming clean with the American public. You seem to be suggesting however that he has been debunked on more than just this issue with leprocy? Where else has this happened? I might add also that your link to the interview addressed only his errant numbers over leprocy. Interestingly though, you state, "Dobb's remarks on immigration and disease have been proven wrong". I consider your own commentary to be an overstep. Perhaps from your own bias?

3.)How does Dobbs stack up against other commentator "attack dog" journalists(using the "j" word very lightly) such as Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity?

Don't know enough about him. I do like O'Reilly however, his bravado and moments of journalistic pride notwithstanding.

1.) No. Everyone is pushing their own agenda.
2.) No.
3.) On what planet are Olbermann, O'Reilly or Hannity journalists?

You know, I find this rather entertaining. Because Lou Dobbs doesn't tow the liberal line(ahem.. I'm sorry "Progressive") to the fullest extent he is attacked by those that do. As I have watched him over the past couple of years I was thinking to myself, "I wonder when liberals are going to start complaining about him". Thanks for coming through with flying colors nebraska29.

I never had much love for Lou Dobbs because he used to constantly doom and gloom the economy, always seemed to be excited to report any numbers that looked bad.

As for the debate questions:

1.)Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

Well if the man is upsetting both the right and left with his reporting that would indicate to me he is doing something right in his reporting.

2.)Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mis-characterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need journalists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currently have now?

What you really mean nebraska is: Because Lou Dobbs isn't in lock step with the liberal agenda, shouldn't he be replaced with journalists that do.

Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

Dobbs descibes himself in one of the cited links in the opening post as "an advocacy journalist". This question was unnecessary.

Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mischaracterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need journalists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currently have now?

It is further proof, yes (like we needed more). But one of the differences between Dobbs and a lot of other "advocacy journalists" is that Dobbs has no qualms about lying - knowingly. If his arguments are so good, why can't he rely on facts to support them? I don't mind "far-out, fringe ideas" or even the odd mischaracterization in an opinion piece, but outright lies are not acceptable anywhere within the sphere of "journalism".

How does Dobbs stack up against other commentator "attack dog" journalists (using the "j" word very lightly) such as Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity?

I would place him below Olbermann, O'Reilly and Hannity. They all mix news and opinion, often admittedly - but Dobbs mixes news, opinion, and fiction. Sure, misinformation, spin, and distortion make their way into the broadcasts of all of the above, but Dobbs is the one most likely to repeat what he knows to be lies. There may be no such thing as unbiased journalism, but that doesn't mean we have to accept untruthful journalism.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to Dobbs doing opinion pieces - and, on many issues (notably outsourcing), I agree with him entirely. But even opinions should have some sort of credible foundation. When a journalist consistently relies on fiction to make his point, it discredits the entire position. With "advocates" like Dobbs, who needs opponents? CNN's "most trusted name in news" has proved to be about as convincing as Fox News' "fair and balanced" - and that is largely due to Lou Dobbs.



And which liberals would those be? Names and sources, please. (If they're the ones hiding under your bed with a truckload of Mexicans, say no more.) And why do these creatures "especially" have an agenda? What is it about these, perhaps nonexistent, liberals that makes their agenda stand out from the agendas of everyone else?

I'm beginning to see why Dobbs might appeal to you. :hmmm:

I'm talking about 82% of Democrats who voted against a House bill in 2006. This was a bill that was geared toward restraining illegal immigration. I'm also talking about all the people who get up on their soap boxes and call me and others who oppose illegal immigration racists. It's a tactic used to shut us up and keep us from speaking out.

Kudos to Dobbs who has the balls to talk about this subject in an honest way. And yes, Wertz, he does appeal to me and I make no apologies for it!

So everyone who voted against a 700-mile fence is in favor of - is, indeed, "pushing for" - "unlimited and neverending illegal immigration". That's your reasoning, right? Goddamn - Karl Rove has had a bigger impact on our public discourse than I would have imagined. "You're either with us or you're with the illegal immigrants." That is one of the lowest, most intellectually bankrupt arguments possible.

Were I in Congress, I would have voted against HR 4437. And I can assure you that I am not in favor unlimited illegal immigration. I am not in favor of "neverending" illegal immigration. In fact, I am not in favor of illegal immigration at all. I can't speak for all "liberals" or all those who opposed HR 4437, but I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find one who is "in favor" of illegal immigration, unlimited, "neverending", or otherwise.

Your defense is exactly the same as saying "if you don't support invading Iraq, you want the terrorists to win". It is unworthy of you. It is unworthy of anyone.


Again, your characterization is unfair and, like so many arguments of the Great God Dobbs, untrue. Almost everyone in this country is against illegal immigration. They only differ in how to approach and solve the problem. Some of us who oppose illegal immigration believe that this is a country that tears walls down rather than a country that builds them. Some of us who oppose illegal immigration believe that the only way to address the problem is to crack down on those who give illegals a reason to immigrate - those who employ them. If there were no jobs for illegal immigrants in the US, there would be no illegal immigrants. Every other bit of legislation that addresses this issue is a waste of time, space, and resources - and would accomplish little to nothing. Just because some who oppose illegal immigration don't believe in using your tactics to address the problem does not mean that "you and others" are the only ones opposed to illegal immigration.

I didn't even mention racism - in relation to you or Dobbs - nor have I seen anyone else do so. As you brought it up, though, another problem with your hero Lou Dobbs is that he does give airtime to the specious arguments of known racists. You really should choose your advocates more wisely.


But that is the point, planet, he does NOT talk about the subject in an honest way. He lies. He is a liar. Were Dobbs honest, this thread would not exist.


I do not doubt it.

Finally a CNN commentator saying it like it is. I agree with him and he is factual to a fault.




You mean like the rest of the media that beat progressive drum? NO

People who are not for drastic measures do not understand the severity of the situation. I live in southern California. This is where the adverse effects of illegal immigration are felt the most.



That's fine and dandy. So what would you propose to solve the problem?



I see what you are saying, but I have yet to see this issue addressed realistically by the democrats. No one wants to touch it, really. At least the Republicans (despite GWB) tried to put forth a solution.



That's great but we still have to secure the southern border, regardless.




Okay, but I don't see most people, especially those who do not live in border states that have high levels of illegal immigrants, seeing the necessity in effectively addressing the situation immediately.



I know you didn't but here in So-Cal it's a dark cloud that looms above the heads of anyone who tries to voice opposition to illegal immigration and its unfavorable byproducts. You simply won't find too many people (whites, esp.) who feel the least bit comfortable in talking about it. So if we aren't comfortable even talking about it, and the politicians avoid it, how are things going to change.



If you have some specific example that would be helpful. He's no worse than any other talking head out there and at least he's addressing this issue and not hiding from it, like most pundits.

I specifically mentioned the one incident where his facts were egregiously wrong. If you click on the hyperlink, you'll find how he exaggerated the rates of leprosy and then blamed the inflated rates on immigration. I would love to hear how he was right in that regard and that his critics were wrong. It's one thing to cite facts about the number of illegals that ocme in, it's another to distort the truth, and then continue to run with it when your argument has been effectively cut off at the knees.

Okay, that I can agree with - though that's true of almost every issue. But that does not place those advocating less drastic measures on the totally opposite side - as, it appears, you concede.


The only one that makes sense, as mentioned in my reply:I don't know if there's empirical research to back this up, but I'd guess that a good 90% (if not more) of illegal immigrants in this country are here due to poverty - they're here to work (I can't imagine that political refugees make up more than 10% of illegal aliens). If drastic measures are required, as you suggest, then we need to crack down hard on those employing illegal aliens: zero tolerance, speedy trials, maximum penalties. If jobs for illegal immigrants dried up tomorrow, the flow of illegal immigrants in this country would plummet - over night. As a sort of bonus, there'd be little expense involved and considerable revenue in penalties.


With such legislation in place - with strict and immediate enforcement - would there be this need?


I'm sorry to hear that - it's unfair. And no one should be afraid to speak their minds on due to... I don't know what to call it - politically correct intimidation? But it must be admitted that what motivates many who are opposed to "illegal immigration" is akin to racism - especially, I would imagine, those not directly affected by it. For some reason, far too many discussions of illegal immigration are tied into the types of arguments that Dobbs uses - immigrants are dirty, they're criminals, they carry horrible diseases, they tend to be rapists and pedophiles, etc. It has nothing to do with their legal status, but with who they are (or who they're believed to be in some white supremacist's nightmare). And that doesn't help the cause of those who are genuinely concerned for more pragmatic reasons.


We could start by addressing the cause rather than the symptom. And the primary cause of illegal immigration is illegal employment.


Sorry - I thought this was the premise of this thread. Aside from the leprosy example cited by nebraska (and his link is worth pursuing), there have been numerous other instances of Dobbs "reporting" untruths. The National Academy of Science, for example, reported that immigration provided a net gain for the US gross domestic product of between $1 billion and $10 billion. Dobbs reported that the NAS found that immigration accounted for a net loss of up to $10 billion - the direct opposite of what they reported.

He has also intimated that illegal immigrants account for a substantial portion of our prison population, at a cost of billions:
In fact, according to the Justice Department, six percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (while they make up seven percent of the population) - and the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens who are in our prisons are there for being illegal aliens, not because of additional crimes. In reality, the crime rate is lower among immigrants than natives. It turns out there is no source whatsoever for the one-third figure: they just made it up.

He is also a persistent critic of the Security and Prosperity Partnership - no crime of itself - but most of his criticisms are based on perpetrating myths about the SPP rather than attacking what it really proposes. The same goes for his repeated notion that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants, while there is a wealth of economic research to demonstrate quite the opposite: it is only those without formal education - highschool drop-outs and the like - who suffer from competition from illegal immigrants. Everyone else is somewhat better off due to their economic input. (The National Bureau of Economic Research has at least three studies - here, here, and here that indicate as much.)

I guess all this is what Ted means by "factual to a fault".

Worse, perhaps, is that Dobbs does rely on racists to make his case. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking some of Dobbs' more dubious guests and quoted "experts", many of them associated with the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens. His reports on illegal immigration contain repeated assertions about the character of immigrants - carriers of dangerous diseases, sex offenders, "savages" - that have no basis in empirical fact, but a lot of basis in blind prejudice.

Dobbs' heart may (or may not) be in the right place, but he makes his case by exploiting fear and hatred - and relying on "reports" that are patently untrue. To his credit, Dobbs will frequently respond to "statistics" provided by his more dubious "experts" with one word: "Incredible." If only he told viewers that he meant that literally.

1.)Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

I can't for the life of me name one journalist that doesn't slant their stories in some way. Some do it more so than others of course....


2.)Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mischaracterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need jouranlists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currenlty have now?


I have to assume that enough people tend to agree with those mischaracterizations, otherwise he wouldn't have a job on one of the largest news shows.

3.)How does Dobbs stack up against other commentator "attack dog" journalists(using the "j" word very lightly) such as Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity?


I don't know much about Olbermann, but I wouldn't personally put O'Reilly in the same category with Sean Hannity. Hannity does a lot of good outside his "journalist" career. Concerts, get-togethers, etc... to raise funds to help the families of the soldiers lost in the war. Amazing he pulls that all off on top of his radio and tv show.

All that aside, though, I figure he stacks up with them in the aforementioned term "journalist".




Interesting perspective on illegal crime



I thought it interesting that while the illegal aliens themselves tend not to commit crimes, their kids do, and a lot of it. I guess it's hard to get through to your kids about how bad it is from their original country and that they shouldn't take it for granted. Kind of sad really, move to the US to make a better life for you and your family and your kids end up behind bars, not too far from the conditions they left behind.

Not sure what “facts” you are referring to – is it his idea on Leprosy? Who cares that is not the issue.

Up to 20 million illegal aliens here and more pouring in every day is – as well as the lack of security there.

We authorize a long fence in 2006 and how many feet have we built so far?

Excellent point, Ataal. I can vouch for the distinction in attitudes between illegal aliens and their anchor babies. The children of illegal aliens are enmeshed in the public school system but often do poorly because their parents cannot and do not often take initiative on the goal of education for their children. They have plenty of kids, but there is little attention put on quality of life and education. Hence, latinos joining gangs, dropping out of high school, repeating the cycle by having children who they are ill-equipped to raise adequately. This is a reality. I see it on a daily basis. If you want statistics, fine, but I've observed this phenomenon first-hand.

I'd like to share a quote from Lou Dobbs which hits the very crux of the issue of illegal immigration:



Corporations and their CEO's benefit the most from illegal immigration. The working and lower class American citizens benefit the least.

Lou Dobbs may not be perfect, but he's willing to address this monumental problem where most men do not touch it with a ten foot poll, lest they be labeled racist, xenophobic Americans.

I agree. I have 2 friends who are teachers in CA. They tell me the first day of school (a ½ day) the illegal immigrants drop off their kids and come back late (end of school day) because they did not read the or care about the schedule. Then halfway through the year many disappear for a month or more as the parent takes them to Mexico or wherever. Thus the teacher is stuck with kids who barely speak English and miss lots of classes.

A mess to say the least. Then the kids (many born here and citizens) are criminals with all the associated cost. It is a disaster.




Let’s be clear – it is only in certain industries that this is true. And it happens only because our lawmakers and our laws allow it to happen. We need a law that requires ALL businesses to use the Federal SS check system and dismiss all immigrants with phony SS #s.

Recently the government had hundreds of thousands of letters ready to go out to employers telling them they had employees with bad SS #s and Democrats stopped the letters from being mailed.


Clearly the Democrats, especially people like Teddy K are even worse than Bush on this issue. Thus is a Dem is elected in 08 count on the US being flooded with illegal immigrants and the Amnesty plan to move forward.

Ted, my topic isn't an immigration topic, it's one dealing about journalism and what constitutes the "facts" This isn't solely about immigration, though it's a part of it. The larger point has to do with journalism and the fact that this guy is expected to be correct with his facts and figures. Now if he's just a political puff-piece who is paid to spout off like Glenn Beck, then so be it. If on the other hand, he's some crusading journalist, which is perhaps splitting hairs, that doesn't negate the fact that he is supposed to be careful with the facts. The leprosy and crime statistics are the issue, not the emergency of illegal immigration.

Fine he is wrong about the leprosy number, and anout the "NA Union"(opinion?), but right about the crime by illegal aliens and their kids. And dead right that it is high time we discussed it openly. Something not done much in the majority of the liberal media.

Its amusing when we disagree that we can pick at each fact and there is nothing wrong with that,. If we had a thread on all the “facts” distorted, or just wrong as reported by much of the liberal Media, or spouted by liberal pols we would have a lot of them.

Dobbs is no conservative and I know how hard it is on liberals when one of the flock strays.



“Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpomTIkv0V8

On October 4, 2005 WKMG television in Florida reported on their website that fourteen "field laborers broke into an 18-year-old woman's home, dragged her across the street and then took turns raping her."
This rampaging gang of "field laborers" consisted of men ranging in age from 18 to 56. The victim reported they choked her until she passed out. When she awoke, they were pouring alcohol in her mouth. She was then raped by each and every one of them.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...0/6/92636.shtml

I guess I have not read his book that makes him a progressive. But have listened to him for years and there is no way he is a progressive. He is a hate monger. He needs to go to Fox. So I disagree with your premise of the thread. I hear him speak to the conservative base. he is as biased as the rest with his hate. as far as immigration why don't all who have not been here for 1000 years that are not true americans get out or speak the native language leave, IE can you speak navajo?

Again all we need to do is get tough on the mob bosses who hire people who do not have proper documentation. I am for three strikes, if a company has three consecutive violations of making money by hiring people without proper documentation life sentence for the owner or CEO. who says a liberal can't be tough on crime. Gee I would also like life sentences for theft over a million dollars. No wall needs to be built, just prisons for these that hire to break the laws..... , just put the american criminals who make bank who will not abide by the laws they can read in jail.

What is interesting is Dobbs, I wonder how his kids of this new family feel? I wonder if they think he is objective, I heard they are a bit young to be able to understand.

1.)Is Dobbs an objective journalist who tries to make an impact, or is he pushing his own personal agenda?

I was never beholdened to any one cable news network, they are all equally shallow as far as I am concerned. But probably for timing reasons more than anything else, I never watched any of Dobbs program. Right now, however, with limited TV time, he seems to be on most often when I am able to catch TV. I must say that I'm somewhat impressed. He is clearly the most level headed of the talking heads. He espouses political independance and seems to maintain that with his ideas and commentary. He appears to me to sit squarly in the middle of Hannity on the right and Olbermann on the left.

2.)Is the fact that Dobbs doesn't admit his mischaracterizations and far-out, fringe ideas, further proof that we need jouranlists with a higher sense of ethics and responsibility than we currenlty have now?

His far out fringe ideas? Everybody's ideas are far out to somebody, I believe his to have quite a bit of support nationwide. Of course, predictably, since his ideas also have detractors, some will use the hate label. The catch all label used by many to slander those who have a different opinion.


3.)How does Dobbs stack up against other commentator "attack dog" journalists(using the "j" word very lightly) such as Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity?

He has his pet issues and he goes after them with purpose, but I've never seen him parsonally attack a guest that he disagrees with [like Hannity] or rant like a lunatic [like Olbermann]. I would consider him more of a journalist than the aforementioned.

Objective journalist! Yeah, right. But he does try to make an impact, no doubt, and his intentions are good.


Lou Dobbs should have corrected himself instead of stubbornly refusing to budge in the face of the information that contradicted his claims. But he's human.

There are other journalists like Tim Russert who seem to practice more consistently the sense of ethics and personal responsibility. I liked Ted Koppel, too, for the way he approached the news.

But since news has also become entertainment, audiences are going to be drawn to the more flamboyant personalities. We get what we "ask" for, after all.


I watched Lou Dobbs happily for quite a while, especially since he was against outsourcing American jobs ala NAFTA or CAFTA.

But he has become a "Johnny One Note" nowadays regarding illegal aliens. I don't like the influx of illegals, and I don't like the way undocumented workers are exploited. I agree with Wertz and others who say that once we lower the boom on those companies and private employers who employ illegals, the influx will be reduced in a way that a fence could not reduce it.

I find Bill-O and Hannity too "Bushy" and knee-jerk conservative. I find Keith Olbermann immensely entertaining, and he often expresses his opinions in a way that I can only hope somebody is listening to. If I miss a day, a month, or a year of Lou Dobbs Tonight, I will still know what he's going to be talking about. I like the man, but he's like a broken record (you know--the forerunners of CD's that were made of black vinyl and were played with needles?) these days.

And no, Lou Dobbs is not a liberal. He is a populist, and a pretty angry one at that. I like him, but there are other issues besides outsourcing and illegal immigration.