CNN has struck a blow for journalism on cable TV by forcing Lou Dobbs to take his "advocacy" elsewhere.
Somewhere between the right-left divide of Fox News and MSNBC, the network has been comparatively fair-minded with the glaring exception of Dobbs, who occupied a unique spot of blowhard wrong-headedness on the political spectrum.
When I started blogging in 2006, my second post was headed "Is Lou Dobbs Running for Something?" and noted: "A long-time Republican, defender of Big Business, business-news entrepreneur himself, he is now a born-again populist, with just a trace of anti-immigration racism, but some may remember when he left CNN in 2000 in a huff after the network president wanted to cut away to live coverage of President Bill Clinton consoling parents at Columbine, which Dobbs argued was not newsworthy."
The following year, as his bloviating got worse, I chose him as "the world's worst journalist" over Bill O'Reilly for being "a rabble-rouser against illegal aliens, provoking more dissension over a serious national issue than any politician in sight--all in the name of journalism."
Soon afterward, the New York Times unmasked his hoax that illegal aliens were bringing leprosy to the US, observing that "The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths."
Not long afterward I posted a pleading "Memo to CNN" that started: "Can’t you give Lou Dobbs tranquilizers and/or rabies shots to get him out of our faces?"
Two and a half years later, given a choice between converting to journalism or venting on talk radio, Lou Dobbs has opted for Limbaughland. Journalism will be much better off without him,
Showing posts with label Lou Dobbs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lou Dobbs. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Tipping Point: Journalist-Free Journalism
As newspapers cut 1,000 jobs last week, Americans are getting their sense of the world less and less through human eyes and ears than from TV cameras abetted by well-groomed mannequins gushing over an endless flow of images.
Talking heads on cable and bloggers online parse and pick away at what the cameras see but there are fewer and fewer reporters to find out what's hidden by using such old-fashioned skills as observation, questioning and legwork.
Where is the tipping point at which "news" becomes all opinion all the time about "facts" supplied by self-interested sources?
Newspapers are drowning in red ink even as Americans depend more heavily on what they do but don't pay for the information they get from them digitally and advertisers don't cover the costs of allowing them to continue providing it.
The challenge, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is to "reinvent their profession and their business model at the same time they are cutting back on their reporting and resources." A top news executive is quoted as saying, "It’s like changing the oil in your car while you’re driving down the freeway."
Meanwhile, Timothy Egan argues on his New York Times blog, "there’s plenty of gossip, political spin and original insight on sites like the Drudge Report or The Huffington Post--even though they are built on the backs of the wire services and other factories of honest fact-gathering. One day soon these Web info-slingers will find that you can’t produce journalism without journalists, and a search engine is no replacement for a curious reporter."
Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh gets a new $400 million contract for spouting off on one medium, while Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann (bless his splenetic soul) dominate another with their points of view.
The pay and job security are nowhere near as good in the mills that provide their raw material.
Talking heads on cable and bloggers online parse and pick away at what the cameras see but there are fewer and fewer reporters to find out what's hidden by using such old-fashioned skills as observation, questioning and legwork.
Where is the tipping point at which "news" becomes all opinion all the time about "facts" supplied by self-interested sources?
Newspapers are drowning in red ink even as Americans depend more heavily on what they do but don't pay for the information they get from them digitally and advertisers don't cover the costs of allowing them to continue providing it.
The challenge, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is to "reinvent their profession and their business model at the same time they are cutting back on their reporting and resources." A top news executive is quoted as saying, "It’s like changing the oil in your car while you’re driving down the freeway."
Meanwhile, Timothy Egan argues on his New York Times blog, "there’s plenty of gossip, political spin and original insight on sites like the Drudge Report or The Huffington Post--even though they are built on the backs of the wire services and other factories of honest fact-gathering. One day soon these Web info-slingers will find that you can’t produce journalism without journalists, and a search engine is no replacement for a curious reporter."
Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh gets a new $400 million contract for spouting off on one medium, while Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann (bless his splenetic soul) dominate another with their points of view.
The pay and job security are nowhere near as good in the mills that provide their raw material.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pimping Out the News
Last week's Chelsea Clinton furor marks a low point in cable network competition for eyeballs and ears during the 24/7 news cycle and raises broader questions about their prime-time "journalism," which has degenerated into a babble of idiot ids vying for attention.
David Shuster's "pimped out" remark exemplifies a trend reported almost a year ago by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that "cable news channels...are moving more toward personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences.
"The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN’s new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How much those individual shows affect a channel’s overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines.
"The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change. Cable is beginning to lose its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal: news on demand. That is something the Internet can now provide more efficiently."
Something even more basic is involved as well. Unlike newspapers, magazines and even blogs, TV news has always been a zero-sum game. If a viewer loses interest and switches channels, it's over, so the premium is on attention-getting and holding. Blowhards and gasbags are the means of choice.
So Olbermann, as much as he rants at Bill O'Reilly, is driven to his own extremes as are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the trash-talking heads they assemble every night.
Only when there is immediate news to analyze, as on election nights, are the more rational voices heard--the Andrea Mitchells, Candy Crowleys, Jeffrey Toobins, Jeff Greenfields and even the Tom Brokaws of TV's greatest generation.
The rest of the time, it's hyperbole and hype, with the news, you might say, being pimped out.
David Shuster's "pimped out" remark exemplifies a trend reported almost a year ago by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that "cable news channels...are moving more toward personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences.
"The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN’s new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How much those individual shows affect a channel’s overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines.
"The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change. Cable is beginning to lose its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal: news on demand. That is something the Internet can now provide more efficiently."
Something even more basic is involved as well. Unlike newspapers, magazines and even blogs, TV news has always been a zero-sum game. If a viewer loses interest and switches channels, it's over, so the premium is on attention-getting and holding. Blowhards and gasbags are the means of choice.
So Olbermann, as much as he rants at Bill O'Reilly, is driven to his own extremes as are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the trash-talking heads they assemble every night.
Only when there is immediate news to analyze, as on election nights, are the more rational voices heard--the Andrea Mitchells, Candy Crowleys, Jeffrey Toobins, Jeff Greenfields and even the Tom Brokaws of TV's greatest generation.
The rest of the time, it's hyperbole and hype, with the news, you might say, being pimped out.
Friday, November 16, 2007
A Lou Dobbs Binge
Avert your eyes. This is going to be ugly, like a drunk falling off the wagon.
Over a year ago, I raised the question, "Is Lou Dobbs running for something?" Today we have the answer:
"Lou Dobbs for President?" John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal. "Don’t' laugh...Friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously considering a race..."
In a moment of blinding clarity a while back, I swore off writing about Dobbs. Dobbs-bashing was becoming addictive, and friends were threatening an intervention.
But today's news has me bellying up to the bar again for straight shots. So here's Dobbs in your eye.
And here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here...
I think I'm beginning to slur my links. Somebody, please, call AA.
Over a year ago, I raised the question, "Is Lou Dobbs running for something?" Today we have the answer:
"Lou Dobbs for President?" John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal. "Don’t' laugh...Friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously considering a race..."
In a moment of blinding clarity a while back, I swore off writing about Dobbs. Dobbs-bashing was becoming addictive, and friends were threatening an intervention.
But today's news has me bellying up to the bar again for straight shots. So here's Dobbs in your eye.
And here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here...
I think I'm beginning to slur my links. Somebody, please, call AA.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Fear of the Year
Gays, pro-choicers and the liberal elite can relax. The Republicans have found their domestic target for '08 and, from all indications in New Hampshire, it is now illegal immigrants who are threatening the very fabric of American society.
"It's becoming a litmus test of how conservative you are," according to a professor of political science quoted by the McClatchy newspapers. "Absolutely an important issue," confirms the director of the University of New Hampshire's Granite State Poll.
Following the Karl Rove playbook, GOP contenders are reaching a consensus on this election's objects of fear and loathing for their Base. Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11, has the franchise on external threats--terrorists and, coming up strong on the outside rail, Iran.
But fear-mongering the domestic dangers is up for grabs. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson want to withhold federal money from cities and states that don't report illegal aliens, toughen border security and speed up the process of deporting them. Duncan Hunter wants to double the fence to keep them out, and Tom Tancredo may soon up the ante with a proposal to nuke them.
Only John McCain, who made the mistake of straight talk on the issue, is not benefiting from the wave of Lou Dobbsian outrage over the threat from people who mow America's lawns and wash dishes in restaurants.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of such strangers?
"It's becoming a litmus test of how conservative you are," according to a professor of political science quoted by the McClatchy newspapers. "Absolutely an important issue," confirms the director of the University of New Hampshire's Granite State Poll.
Following the Karl Rove playbook, GOP contenders are reaching a consensus on this election's objects of fear and loathing for their Base. Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11, has the franchise on external threats--terrorists and, coming up strong on the outside rail, Iran.
But fear-mongering the domestic dangers is up for grabs. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson want to withhold federal money from cities and states that don't report illegal aliens, toughen border security and speed up the process of deporting them. Duncan Hunter wants to double the fence to keep them out, and Tom Tancredo may soon up the ante with a proposal to nuke them.
Only John McCain, who made the mistake of straight talk on the issue, is not benefiting from the wave of Lou Dobbsian outrage over the threat from people who mow America's lawns and wash dishes in restaurants.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of such strangers?
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Wages of Sincerity
Those who worry about the flood of illegal immigrants, the Lou Dobbs legion, can take comfort in the story of Pedro Zapeta. U. S. Customs is on the job.
Zapeta came here from Guatemala, worked as a dishwasher for 11 years and lived frugally to make enough money to buy land in his mountain village and build a home for his mother and sisters. He was not educated enough to send money home or put it into a bank.
He saved $59,000 in cash, stuffed it into a duffel bag and went to the Ft. Lauderdale terminal for a flight home. When Customs officials asked how much money he had, Zapeta showed them the duffel bag. They seized it.
That was two years ago. Ever since, his volunteer lawyers have been trying to prove he was not a drug courier by providing pay stubs for his $5.50 an hour job. Customs officials had turned him over to the I.N.S., which initiated proceedings to deport the man who had been trying to leave the country.
When the story went public, well-wishers donated $10,000 to Zapeta’s cause, but the I.R.S. stepped in to claim taxes on all of his money.
His attorneys say federal prosecutors offered a deal: Zapeta could take $10,000 of the original cash, and $9,000 in donations as long as he didn't talk publicly and left the country immediately. He said no.
This week, a judge signed an order allowing him to work legally in the U. S. temporarily until his tax problems are sorted out. Would Lou Dobbs call that amnesty?
Zapeta came here from Guatemala, worked as a dishwasher for 11 years and lived frugally to make enough money to buy land in his mountain village and build a home for his mother and sisters. He was not educated enough to send money home or put it into a bank.
He saved $59,000 in cash, stuffed it into a duffel bag and went to the Ft. Lauderdale terminal for a flight home. When Customs officials asked how much money he had, Zapeta showed them the duffel bag. They seized it.
That was two years ago. Ever since, his volunteer lawyers have been trying to prove he was not a drug courier by providing pay stubs for his $5.50 an hour job. Customs officials had turned him over to the I.N.S., which initiated proceedings to deport the man who had been trying to leave the country.
When the story went public, well-wishers donated $10,000 to Zapeta’s cause, but the I.R.S. stepped in to claim taxes on all of his money.
His attorneys say federal prosecutors offered a deal: Zapeta could take $10,000 of the original cash, and $9,000 in donations as long as he didn't talk publicly and left the country immediately. He said no.
This week, a judge signed an order allowing him to work legally in the U. S. temporarily until his tax problems are sorted out. Would Lou Dobbs call that amnesty?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)