The Huffpo's lead today is about the Lou Dobbs "birther" controversy, and there are no less than 5 other headlines on the front page regarding the matter.
Having had some experience with Mr. Dobbs, I thought I might add some context to the matter. By the way, I have no dog in the "birther" hunt. I'm a little bit more concerned about the fact that we are circling the depressionary drain.
I first encountered Lou at CNN 26 years ago when I worked there in master control. I was a student at Georgia Tech at the time, and since I was majoring in Industrial Management, I asked about transferring over to work on Lou's Moneyline show, because I wanted to learn more about business. I was warned by several people not to do so, because in the words of my boss Jack Ormond, "if you work for Lou, you damn well better make sure all your facts are correct."
I changed my mind.
Flash forward to 2005, during the middle of the Walmart wars. Lou had Robert Greenwald on to discuss his anti-Walmart film The High Cost Of Low Price. I got a call from the CNN bookers that Lou wanted me to appear on his show in order to give the pro-Walmart viewpoint. I was not very good at live TV at the time (as evidenced by my yelling "Boo!" on Halloween night during an interview on Showbiz Today) but they were insistent, and rather than doing a remote from Atlanta, they flew me to New York for an in-studio so that I could have the same treatment as Mr. Greenwald.
About 10 minutes before the broadcast Lou walked into the green room and said "I really can't stand Walmart or Lee Scott, but to be professional, we're going to let you present your side of the story. However, I'm going to be pretty hard on you in front of millions of people."
I said okay and promptly excused myself to go throw up. I survived the live interview, and happily I've never had stage fright since.
My point is Lou Dobbs went way out of his way to make sure that he presented both sides of the story. He didn't have to (or want to), but his professional code insisted he should. It sounds very 8-track, but some still view journalism as a calling, not just a means to speaking gigs.
During this period I appeared on many of the major media outlets, but of all of them, Lou Dobbs operation at CNN was the most professional and fair. Ironically, the "fair and balanced" Fox News refused to have me on. Well, I do have a face for radio, and we know Fox likes them "purty."
Lou Dobbs is taking a lot of grief for essentially repeating the same professional behavior he exhibited towards me a few years ago. His journalistic methods have not changed from 3 years ago, or 26 years ago in Atlanta. He is trying to be fair on a very difficult subject, one that is clearly distasteful to him. He's clearly not doing it for the ratings, as his have fallen during this tempest.
Lou has been the big guy on campus at CNN for many years and is a friend of Ted, which is why a lot of the fire directed at him is internal to CNN, from young Turks who envy his status (and time slot). He has become a straw man proxy for the birthers, and a target for many who resent his stance on illegal immigration. He doesn't deserve it. He's simply being thorough and professional, which is why he's lasted so long in a serpentine business that revels in eating its own tail.
Follow Ron Galloway on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rongalloway
Instead, week after week he appeared on screen trying to keep the story alive in spite of a complete lack of substance, it couldn't have been more obviously dead if he'd nailed it to its perch. He's in denial and just can't bring himself to admit the dream is over.
Next on Lou Dobbs: "Is Elvis still alive?"
I quit Crap News Network completely after Dobbs affair with his ludicrous spouting off about the President's birth. How can I trust that CNN's other personalities are not taking the liberty of espousing their opinions, rather than the news. They have joined the ranks of Focks News.
PS There is nothing "two-sided" about the birther debate. Or the hate speech Mr. Dobbs has engaged in recently.
I thought Lou Dobbs was a political satirist.
And, a long time ago, I heard Dan Quayle on the radio, and I thought, here is a comedian after my own heart. I lost all respect for him when I discovered that he was Vice President.
I wonder what point this comment is trying to make?
I await Lou's presentation of both sides of the Moon walk controversy, perhaps he could present the conspiracy side to Buzz Aldrin.
Now that's responsible journalism! LOL
Where do hacks get their news?
You're using the existence of the status quo as both basis and primary topic of your argument. You're defending the crappy status quo in broadcast news by the fact of the crappy status quo in broadcast news (invalidating complaints about teevee news with nothing but the fact that teevee news suck) and that's circular reasoning -- petitio principii -- and that's invalid.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
I can only disagree with your assessment of Lou Dobbs. Someone who is "thorough and professional" would not engage on such controversial subjects and mix reporting, commentary and analysis into one word salad.
The Lou Dobbs of Moneyline is long gone and in the past. The new Lou Dobbs is more like an alter ego of the old Lou.
Walter Cronkite was "thorough and professional." Would he have presented himself on TV like Lou Dobbs? Even Dan Rather didn't go there and you know he was the most edgy for an evening news anchor.