Cnn on The Huffington Post

Nancy Grace Interview Contributed To Melinda Duckett Suicide, Professor Says

2009-12-06T15:15:22Z

OCALA, Fla. — A Harvard professor says CNN Headline News host Nancy Grace's relentless questioning of a Florida mother three years ago contributed to her suicide, according to a filing in the family's wrongful death case.

Grace launched aggressive nightly coverage of 2-year-old Trenton Duckett's case shortly after he disappeared in 2006, usually with a collection of analysts. When the boy's mother, Melinda Duckett, appeared by telephone two weeks into the case, speculation was beginning to narrow on her possible involvement.

Former U.S. Sex Trafficking Victim Shares Plight

2009-12-01T21:29:10Z

A video broadcasted Tuesday on CNN highlights the very real affects of America's underground slave trade. "Melissa" started off as a teen runaway and soon found herself at the mercy of a pimp who forced her to sleep with men for her food and lodging. Before her escape, "Melissa" was one of an estimated 25,000 women who have been forced into the sex trafficking industry in the U.S.

WATCH THE VIDEO:

According to UNICEF, over one million children are trafficked annually worldwide. This means that one to four million kids are falling into slavery every year and each day more children are forced to become sex workers or someone's labor slave.

To learn more about the human trafficking trade and what you can do to help the victims of sex and labor slavery, check out "Ten Things You Should Know About Human Trafficking" at Causecast.org.

Get HuffPost Impact On Facebook and Twitter!

David Sirota: Some Simple Questions After Obama's Afghanistan War Speech

2009-12-01T20:51:52Z

Just a few quick questions to ponder after President Obama's speech announcing a massive escalation in Afghanistan:

- What percentage of those kids in the audience will die because of this decision?

- Why do so many pundits and pro-Obama activists continue to focus on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this decision is for President Obama, rather than on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this will be for the soldiers who are killed? Doesn't Obama get to make this decision, and then go home to the comfortable confines of a butlered White House, while thousands of Americans will be sent 7,000 miles from home to face their potential deaths? Isn't the latter "harder" than the former?

- Where's the antiwar movement and the marches and the organizing and the protesting? Where are all those well-funded groups that protested George W. Bush's war policy? Or was all that really just about hating George Bush and embracing blind Partisan War Syndrome?

- In the days and weeks after this speech, will the White House's cynical new spin get ever more desperate and become, hey - at least an Afghanistan escalation holds out the possibility of making sure military combat casualties start outpacing military suicides?

- Simple budget question: Should we now believe that escalating the Afghanistan War at the same annual cost of universal health care will save more than 45,000 Americans a year (i.e. the number of Americans who die every year for lack of health insurance)?

- Did CNN really turn a move to potentially send thousands of Americans to die in Central Asia into an over-stylized, hyper-marketed television show called "Decision Afghanistan?" Is the media really that soulless, or did my eyes betray me?

- Which is worse - a stupid person like George W. Bush starting a dumb occupation, or a smart person like Barack Obama following the lead of that stupid person, but actually escalating that occupation?

- The "we're going to escalate war to end war" refrain throughout the speech - have we heard that before somewhere? It sounds sorta like "we'll burn down the Vietnam villages to save them." Just curious if that's what we're talking about here - because, ya know, that worked out really well.

- Are we really expected to believe that massively escalating a war is the way to end a war? I mean, really? Like, is the public really looked at like we're that stupid? And a follow-up question: Are we really that stupid?

- If Obama's Afghan War strategy about escalating a war to end a war was a self-help strategy for, say, alcoholics, wouldn't it prescribe drinking more whiskey to stop drinking - and wouldn't we all laugh at that?

- How many pundits will insist that bowing down to the Military-Industrial complex and escalating this missionless war somehow shows "resolve" and "strength" and "toughness" and "leadership" and not embarrassing weakness?

- Would the Obamaphiles now telling us to "give President Obama a chance" with this decision and/or defending Obama's escalation - would these same people be saying we should "give President McCain a chance" and/or defending President McCain's escalation if he was the one in office making this decision?

- I'm confused: Is this hope or change?

Deborah Jaramillo: Protesters and War: An Excerpt from Ugly War, Pretty Package: How CNN and Fox News Made the Invasion of Iraq High Concept

2009-12-01T09:22:42Z

When I started to research Ugly War, Pretty Package in 2004, I didn't realize how taxing it would be to re-watch CNN and Fox News coverage from the first week of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was taxing enough the first time around. This time, however, I took comfort in the fact that a detailed analysis of the coverage would simply allow the news to expose its own flaws that, at times, bordered on criminal.

The point of Ugly War is to disabuse people of the notion that television news somehow embodies and tweaks HBO's old tagline. It's Not TV. It's News.

Television news is absolutely television, and extended, uninterrupted war coverage is one of the best examples of how the cable news networks have embraced the values of "high concept" entertainment.

In the following excerpt I look at how CNN and Fox News covered the huge anti-war demonstrations after the start of the invasion. If you've only seen coverage of the right-wing tea-party protests, this excerpt will remind you of how cable news handles dissent coming from the left.

Excerpt

[...]The typing of U.S. antiwar protesters is an example of striking difference between the two networks. [...] In late March 2003, antiwar protesters appeared multiple times on both CNN and Fox News Channel. Both networks reported on the U.S.-based antiwar protests in relation to seven primary topics: the significance of the rallies in a democracy, the size of the antiwar rallies, polls about public support for the war, the rationale for protesting, pro-war or pro-troop rallies or sentiment, protests that the networks characterized as "violent" or "disruptive," and the troops in Iraq. Each network's coverage used these topics to type the protesters, and Fox News Channel specifically used each to reject the premise that protesters were heroic in their exercise of democracy and freedom of speech.

According to Fox journalists, the protesters hated the United States and therefore did not practice democracy. The Fox reporters constructed a storyline that said that the number of protesters was minimal and that they represented the minority in public opinion about the war. They had no reasons for protesting other than to overthrow the U.S. government. They were violent and encouraged violence, which contradicted their verbal appeals for peace. They said they wanted democracy but they supported Hussein--not the U.S. troops--and did not believe in bringing democracy to the oppressed Iraqis. They claimed to speak truth to power heroically, but they merely represented another evil power. According to Fox journalists, the U.S. citizens who exercised their democratic right to oppose a war they considered unjust were no less than traitors.

CNN journalists also disagreed with the actions of the protesters, but they handled their coverage of antiwar events much differently than the Fox network did. Instead of vilifying the protesters, they co-opted their message by emphasizing how antiwar activity demonstrated the tolerance of U.S. democracy. Aaron Brown asserted that he and his colleagues at CNN were "great believers in the right to demonstrate," and both he and Judy Woodruff gave small speeches on the superiority of U.S.-style democracy, of which protests were a vital part (CNN March 20-22). Guest commentator Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison stated that the right to protest was "in line with freedom of speech" (CNN March 21). Fiske notes how statements made in support of protesters illustrate the process of "inoculation" in news programming, an incorporation of radical voices into an official narrative so that the opposition actually fortifies the status quo. In this process, journalists first accord the oppositional speech minimal importance so that the rhetoric can subvert the dominant ideology without exacting any real damage. In addition, the representatives of the news media "[speak] the final 'truth,'" an act that frames oppositional speech from a specific viewpoint (Fiske 1987, 290-291). CNN journalists allowed protesters to have their sound bites and then defused the power of antiwar speech by applauding a tolerant democracy.

CNN's practice of "ideological containment" was just as problematic but less combative than the tactics presented on Fox News Channel. The Fox network did not feature the protesters as much as CNN. By way of explanation, Shepard Smith announced that Fox News Channel was keeping coverage of the antiwar protests "limited" in order to keep the network's overall coverage "fair and balanced" (Fox News Channel March 20). However, when the network did focus on the protesters, its journalists failed to uphold the right of U.S. citizens to protest in a time of war. Although guest commentator Mayor Rudolph Giuliani called the protests "a necessary part of democracy," an exchange between Fox's John Kasich and Congressman Greg Meeks became heated when the subject of democracy arose. In response to Kasich's "stunned and mystified" reaction to the protests, Congressman Meeks expressed his hopes for a democracy in which people had the right to dissent. Kasich responded by telling the protesters to "shut up," prompting Congressman Meeks to accuse him of not believing in democracy (Fox News Channel March 22). Alan Colmes, the self-identified "liberal" of the program Hannity & Colmes, voiced the most prominent defense of free speech on Fox News Channel with this remark: "People have the right to [protest], and certainly that's not in debate, but I think some of these people feel they have to prove they have the right, but they don't have the obligation" (Fox News Channel March 24). If Fox journalists gave any attention to the antiwar protests at all, it was only to imply or even to insist that they should not be speaking. The network gave no time to the real news of the antiwar protest stories, which would necessarily have focused on the issues the protestors were raising and the points they were making.

[...]

However, Fox News journalists quickly decided that the protests were indeed newsworthy as reports of violence and disruption became part of the story. The issue of disruptive protests led the network's personnel to label the demonstrators a "safety hazard," further discrediting their intentions. Journalists consistently declared that the protests were a danger. Rebecca Gomez claimed that protesters "nearly attacked" her and her crew; she interpreted this as evidence that the protesters "seemed to want to take their anger out on someone" (Fox News Channel March 22). Reporting on a protest in Washington, D.C., Shepard Smith said the demonstrators were "making a mess of the morning commute" and were keeping firefighters "from answering emergency calls." He also declared San Francisco to be in a state of "absolute anarchy" (Fox News Channel March 20). Brian Kilmeade said protesters were "out of control" and were "breaking the law" (Fox News Channel March 21). Bill Cowan called Market Street "ground zero" in the protesters' "mission to paralyze downtown" Chicago and frustrate "innocent drivers" (ibid.). Bob Sellers highlighted arrests in San Francisco and police chasing protestors at a New York City rally (Fox News Channel March 22). Rebecca Gomez called the crowd at the rally she covered in New York "out of order" and raised the concern that marchers "diverted limited resources from stopping possible terrorist strikes" in a "city already hurt financially by 9/11" (Fox News Channel March 22). John Kasich, Miami police commissioner John Timoney, Brian Kilmeade, and Linda Vester all argued that protesters diverted resources from homeland security (Fox News Channel March 22-24). According to Fox News Channel, the protesters were violent and posed dire threats to the safety of the United States--a claim that linked the protesters to terrorists.

CNN's reporting of the protests was much more balanced. It reported that 1,000 arrests and various run-ins with police had occurred at protests in New York City and San Francisco, but both Aaron Brown and Wolf Blitzer pronounced the protests "peaceful" (CNN March 20 and 21). Blitzer even prefaced a story about the protesters in New York City with the line "Freedom of speech led to urban gridlock," emphasizing the disturbance but linking it to a constitutional right (CNN March 22).

Fox News Channel journalists insisted that the "disloyalty" of protesters was particularly disturbing a time when they perceived unity to be the true sign of patriotism. Personalities on Fox News Channel achieved this by characterizing protesters as opposed to the troops, freedom, and democracy and supportive of terrorists. The issue of supporting the troops was less black and white on CNN. Aaron Brown stated that one result of the Vietnam War was that "we don't blame soldiers" for policy decisions (CNN March 21). With that, Brown defended the protesters by distinguishing anti-troop sentiment from anti-policy sentiment. Fox News Channel journalists were unable to tolerate any distinction between criticism of government policy and criticism of the troops. Guest commentator Scott O'Grady, a former Air Force Captain who had been shot down over Bosnia and later rescued, suggested that the protesters realize "that there are evil people in this world, and this is a just war, and we need to be supporting" the troops (Fox News Channel March 23). Guest Jeffrey Zaun, a former POW of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, took this a bit further, claiming that the protesters were "insulting" the troops (Fox News Channel March 23). Rebecca Gomez summed up the tone of Fox News Channel by saying, "Some of the protesters claim they do support the troops, they just don't support the war, and they seem to think that they can do both" (Fox News Channel March 22). Her statement reflected the kind of consciously uncomplicated logic that Fox News Channel typically used when speaking of the protesters.

Accusations that the protesters were disloyal grew increasingly severe on Fox News Channel over the course of the first five days of the invasion. By claiming that the protesters stood "against any war for the liberation of Iraq," Bob Sellers simultaneously supported the Bush administration's official reasons for the invasion and typed the protesters as obstacles in the quest for freedom (Fox News Channel March 22). Shepard Smith hinted at an insidious conspiracy when he declared that the antiwar protests were "part of a synchronized movement to stage protests" (Fox News Channel March 20). His statement was in keeping with the network's numerous attempts to link antiwar protesters to organizations that Fox journalists deemed to be subversive--a tactic similar to the network's typing of France and Russia as disloyal to the United States because they criticized the war. [...] David Asman argued that the protesters were vulnerable to Iraqi propaganda, and one guest claimed that the protesters' rhetoric "play[ed] into the hands of our enemies" (Fox News Channel March 22 and 24). In addition to calling "most" of the protesters "stupid," Fred Barnes accused them of being "objectively . . . pro-Saddam"; in disgust, Tony Snow replied, "Enough of them" (Fox News Channel March 22).

[...]

In short, in Fox News Channel's estimation, the protesters were not to be trusted. Fox journalists and guests typed the protesters as false heroes with even more fervor than they exhibited when typing France and Russia. In contrast, CNN reporters and guests did not resort to the type of inflammatory rhetoric that was a mainstay on Fox News Channel; CNN's approach was to contain the message of the protestors by pointing to the right of citizens in a democracy to free speech rather than focusing on the issues the protestors were raising.

Works Cited

Fiske, John. 1987. Television Culture. London: Methuen & Co.

Deborah L. Jaramillo is Assistant Professor of Film and Television at Boston University. She is author of Ugly War Pretty Package: How CNN and Fox News Made the Invasion of Iraq High Concept.

Nick Carr: Scouting NY on TV!

2009-11-24T15:20:12Z

A few weeks
ago, I did an interview for What's the Deal?, an NBC New York series
that investigates various quirky aspects of city life. The topic: the
rarity of phone booths. This is one of those pieces that has tons of zoom-ins, so down a Dramamine and look for me at the beginning and tail end.

Shortly
after I posted my original article on Manhattan phone booths, everyone
from CNN to the NY Post had similar stories up without a site mention.
Thanks to NBC for making the effort!

-SCOUT

PS - Very appropriate Onion headline: "CNBC Cameraman Can't Believe He's Filming Another Blog Off A Computer Monitor"

Andy Borowitz: Lou Dobbs Urged To Run For President By Imaginary Friend

2009-11-24T12:52:01Z

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - Former CNN host Lou Dobbs said today that he was seriously considering running for president after being urged to do so by an imaginary friend.

In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Dobbs said that he had not thought about seeking public office until his fictitious playmate, Moo, pleaded with him to consider it.

When asked what might make him attempt a bid, Mr. Dobbs demurred and said, "Let me put Moo on the line."

In the forty-five-minute interview that followed, Mr. Dobbs' imaginary friend Moo said, "Speaking as one of his imaginary supporters, I believe that Lou is uniquely qualified to tackle the imaginary problems facing this country." More here.

Alex Castellanos To Continue CNN Gig, Downplays New Post At RNC

2009-11-24T11:43:01Z

Longtime Republican media strategist Alex Castellanos will continue to serve as an on-air personality for CNN despite recently taking on a consulting role for the Republican National Committee, the network confirms.

On Monday, it was reported that Castellanos, who has served as a media consultant for many Republican presidential candidates as well as an advisor for the private health insurance industry, will play an expanded role at the RNC after the committee parted ways with its communications director, Trevor Francis.

The move will not preclude Castellanos from appearing regularly on cable news. A spokesperson for CNN tells the Huffington Post that Castellanos will not be paid for his RNC gig and, therefore, will be treated in the same vein as other partisan commentators who advise campaign committees, such as longtime Democrats, Donna Brazile and Paul Begala.

"CNN has political strategists that provide unpaid advice to both sides of the aisle, and Alex will remain as a CNN contributor," said Edie Emery, a CNN spokeswoman. "CNN will continue to be vigilant in disclosing contributor affiliations and their profiles."

Castellanos, in an email to the Huffington Post, said reports of his RNC gig were overstated. He is "not replacing anyone" at the committee, "just helping out... as a senior advisor."

"Few things in life are permanent but I'm permanently a Republican," Castellanos said, when asked if the RNC post was long-term. "And [I'm] happy to serve as a senior advisor to the chairman whenever he asks."

While the RNC gig may simply consist of a consulting gig, it could have major ramifications when placed in the context of the frantic debate over the future of the Republican Party. Castellanos just recently slammed two major GOP officials: Florida governor and U.S. senatorial candidate Charlie Crist and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Moreover, he has established a firm reputation for favoring highly personal political attacks -- a trait he seems likely to bring to an RNC desperate to produce major electoral gains in the 2010 elections.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Joe Vecchio: Glenn Beck Is Revolting... But Should We Puke?

2009-11-24T01:36:14Z

Glenn Beck. Who is this guy? A "Morton Downey Jr" hopped up on drugs? A crazed, reactionary "Howard Beale"? Should we get our shorts in a bunch over his pathetic mugging and ridiculous remarks? I mean, even he calls himself crazy. Perhaps we should take him at his word. If you check out his profile on Wikipedia, his sad and sordid drug-addled past is there for all to see.
It was weird to see him on the CNN Headline News channel last year. At least now he's on the "right" network. Rupert Murdoch pushes his product as "fair and balanced" and Orwell and Machiavelli are guzzling champagne somewhere.

With the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, we now have to stomach the explosion of the TV and radio pundits of outrage. Maybe the UK-like tabloid journalism is finally gone mainstream here. (Is that why they drink heavily the UK? Not that we aren't any slouches.) The sad fact is that we media consumers get far too little "real news" and far too much radical bluster, bravado and plain ol', unvarnished BS handed to us every day on a silver platter. It's bad enough when doom-and-gloomers like Gerald Celente get air time... It's abundantly worse when major TV personalities with hours of airtime, make "revolution" and "the sky is falling" their mantra.

In fairness, we should hearken back to the Bush/Cheney years and examine what is different about what the punditocracy is pushing these days. In 2003, the whole world demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq -- fairly good coverage; but to little avail. In 2004, the March for Women's Lives in DC drew well over 1 million demonstrators, was probably the largest event in the history of our nation's capitol (prior to the last Inauguration) -- and was largely ignored by the mass media. Not one aerial image of the crowd on any major TV outlet. Then and now, the media playing field is still largely uneven.

There indeed, were images of Bush with the Hitler moustache circulating on the web. And who can forget all the brilliant anti-Bush satire at www.WhiteHouse.org, which is now permanently archived at www.GeorgeWBush.org. But I do not remember any major TV political commentators calling for revolution or airing Hilter-esque images of Bush. The word of the day was "fear" and we were constantly waiting for Bush or Cheney's other shoe to drop.

But many pols have pandered "fear" for many years. McCarthy and the Red scare. Nixon and the communist tapes in the pumpkin patch. More recently, the purported "smoking gun of Hussein and the mushroom cloud." It's a great vehicle if you want to start and run a religion. Fear can be a good deterrent in dealing with a child's bad behavior. Hell, it can even get you elected President if you manipulate it well enough. We now have a articulate, classy, globally-respected President whose thoughts and words are well-measured ... and the rightwing crazies can't stand it.

"Fear" is mostly what Beck has to peddle. He's a gas bag ... but he's out of gas as far as offering any sane policies or ideas. Beck's only job is to figure out how to be more nuts and crazy than he was yesterday.

One would think a key question regarding Beck vis-a-vis all the other talkers would be Is he calling for the violent overthrow of government? Isn't that a federal crime requiring some hefty jail time and fines? After a little research, you come to discover a sedition law called the Smith Act...and that it rarely gets enforced since many cases were thrown out by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional about 50 years ago. The law however, does remain on the books. The little I have listened to Beck, he does tiptoe carefully and talks of a "coming revolution" and cataclysm without getting into actual details to plan for the violent overthrow the government. (If he has, please share because I really don't watch the buffoon.) Even O'Reilly seemed a little put-off at the Beck bluster during his interview of him. Of course, that might just be a bad case of professional jealousy.

And now we hear of Beck's famous Plan. Does he call for a violent revolution? Hell no... Glenn Beck's Plan is right out of Palin's playbook. His Plan is to promote "more Glenn Beck." Get out among the people...put on a show with more smoke and mirrors. What 's more American than that? "Pack the kids into the pickup, Martha... We're skippin' "professional wrestlin' " tonight... Glenn Beck is in town."

So we must wrestle with the difficult concepts of "freedom of speech" and "censorship". Most Americans all like a lot of the former... and don't care much for the latter. Gone from the equation are the days of responsible journalism and any sort of broadcasting code of ethics or standards that were propounded and followed back in the day when the National Assn of Broadcasters carried some actual weight.

What are we left with? The thought of muzzling Beck seems un-American. The sedition laws are rarely enforced. We have arrived at a point in American TV media where outrage is the norm and real information is at a premium. Walter Cronkite and company, rest in peace. This is not our mother's television. Today, we have a lot more of everything. In the post-Carson era, it happened in the talk-variety show genre as well...another diluted talent pool. A lot more channels, flavors, colors, products and personalities. We have a lot more pundits and entertainers competing for our attention. I think that's all that's going on here. Beck really deserves one big "yawn" and a flip of the channel.

The greatest media danger is the possibility of setting off a mob by haranguing the public into frenzy. It usually takes a singular, violent act that is flashed on the screen incessantly on many channels that can trigger a full-blown riot. We can look no further than 1991 when the Rodney King beating and arrest aired over and over ad nauseam. We did not get much detail about the chase or the suspect... just the constant and awful image of a black man getting clubbed by the cops. But it was not footage of the King beating alone that caused the riot leading to 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damage to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. It was the acquittal of the officers that triggered the rioting. So the anger has to stew and fester... then erupt. One could make a solid argument that the TV media in stringing these events together and airing them, in large part, caused that horrific rioting in Los Angeles not that many years ago.

If we are to worry at all about Mr. Beck and his shenanigans, it would be that he somehow causes a "Rodney King moment". On the upside, Beck has already told us he's crazy. I mean, take a look at that face on the top banner of his website. Is he in the same league with Cronkite, Brinkley, Chancellor, Jennings? I think not. And I think the great bulk of American people also know that.

Who's left any more? CBS is down to 2 foreign bureaus, for cryin' out loud. You know how we should deal with Beck? Well, there is MSNBC... but if it's the real comics of TV news you want ... kick back and get locked and loaded on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert !!

Sam Sedaei: CNN's Shamelessly Biased Report On 3 American Soldiers' Murders In Iraq

2009-11-23T18:10:15Z

In March of 2007, three American soldiers detained four suspects in Iraq. They were supposed to take them to a detainee housing area. But instead, the first sergeant in the group approached another soldier in the group, Pfc Josh Hartson, and asked him whether he would have a problem "if we take care of them" instead. Following this exchange, the soldiers took the detainees to a canal and executed detainees.

The three sergeants who killed the detainees were rightly convicted of premeditated murder in a military courtroom in Germany and are serving long prison term sentences in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

In a CNN report by the company's "Special Investigation Unit," reporter Abbie Boudreau delves deep into the story. The report could have been an eye opening account of the details of this gruesome murder or its impact on how such incidents impact Iraqis' opinion of American soldiers, the vast majority of whom are trying to do the right thing and serve as best as they know how.

But instead, most of the report focused on tough rules and regulations regarding the gathering of evidence that soldiers must follow in order to keep the detainees imprisoned. This was the reason that the soldiers gave to justify their ugly act. But instead of challenging those claims, the CNN reporter seemed to take these excuses at their face value, delving into the army policy manual, which instructed the soldiers to gather a few pieces of evidence that could help keep the detainee.

She then grilled Brig. Gen. David Quantock, who now oversees detainee operations about the policy that required soldiers to offer some evidence for guilt every time they bring in a detainee. The last half an hour of the slanted report included lengthy and overly sympathetic interviews with the wives of the three convicted soldiers as they praised their husbands, calling them "heroes," and explaining how wonderful they were. The report showed the footage of three of one of the soldier's children and their ages. The reporter then read one of the soldier's letters from prison to his family out loud with the camera zooming in on the signature at the end of the letter, "Daddy."

The obvious problem with this report -- and most reports about the war, army, military and soldiers' conduct abroad -- is that it is heavily slanted toward the military. The report did not even mention the names of the captured detainees, and the reporter most certainly had no interest in the families of those detainees who were executed at the hand of these American soldiers without being charged with a crime and getting the chance to defend themselves before the rule of law. It was the most dehumanizing report I have seen in a long time that may as well have been made by the convicted murderers' defense teams.

Now compare this report with that of the recent murders of Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood a few weeks ago. Here was a soldier who -- while committed reprehensible and unjustifiable murders -- had long felt alienated in the military, expressed frustrations about being forced to go to Afghanistan and was mortified about the idea of having to kill fellow Muslims. He was also constantly discriminated against, isolated and treated not at a comrade and brother that he deserved to be treated. Once he found the following words written on his car: "Camel jockey! Get out of here!"

Based on the Sunday night report, one would think CNN may also be interested in learning about the deep causes of these murders committed by an American soldier. But of course, the cable news station has shown no such interest. Instead, they have brought up various experts to discuss semantics; should we call this an act of "terrorism" or just bloody murders committed by an extremist Muslim who wore white arab clothes, prayed five times a day, talked to an extremist mullah a lot, and oh by the way, his name was Hasan?

Of course the soldiers who killed the Iraqi detainees would come up with justifications for their premeditated murders. That's what murderers do! There is absolutely no reason for "the most trusted name in news" to give legitimacy to those excuses by spending a whole report to try to manufacture sympathy for convicted murderers without adequately explaining the consequences of such murders in the larger context of America's effort to get Iraqis on our side. The reality is the rules and regulations were put in place in 2005 after the pictures of pyramids made of naked Iraqi prisoners in Abu Gharib were leaked out. Our society must be clear in sending our soldiers the message that they are absolutely in no position to walk around in a country that we invaded in direct violation of international law and capture and execute people without turning them in with evidence on why they captured those individuals.

Perhaps the problem is deeper and hard to solve. After all, should the so called independent media call the soldiers on one side of the conflict "heroes" as CNN reporters often do any chance they get, especially on Veterans' and Memorial Days? How independent can we really expect any mainstream media reports to be on any story that relates to the military if it has already decided who is good and who is evil and often voluntarily acts as the privately funded public relations arm of the military?

Fact-Check Fetish Now Being Applied To Sketch Comedy

2009-11-23T13:43:27Z

I missed the latest Saturday Night Live, but by the next morning I had received an email from a concerned citizen about the content of its "cold open," in which Fred Armisen, as President Barack Obama, is assailed by Will Forte's Hu Jintao over America owing China money. The emailer was angry at Saturday Night Live for reinforcing flawed media narratives to the effect that the stimulus package has not created any jobs and that health care reform will not save any money -- and overall getting facts wrong. "This is really the wrong time for SNL to be getting basic facts so sorely wrong."

WATCH the sketch in question:

Does anyone actually expect Saturday Night Live to get its facts straight? Well, yes! Very recently, the show ran another sketch that featured Armisen as Obama running down a list of achievements -- and finding that none had been accomplished. This actually led to CNN factchecking the show:

CNN's judgment was subsequently skewered by The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

CNN Leaves It There

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Now, I am basically of the mind that holding Saturday Night Live up to some high level of fact-check scrutiny is more than a little absurd. The traction point of this Saturday's cold open was simply that lots of people joke about China holding so much of our debt. The writers basically take this fundamentally oversimplified idea to give the Jintao character room to complain about how America is spending money to ameliorate social problems and bail out banks while China has an outstanding IOU. I suppose that Armisen could have launched into a lengthy analysis of how the stimulus package is rolling out, or delivered a treatise on how reforming health care could keep people out of crippling debt, allowing them to purchase more Chinese exports, but doing so would commit the comedy crime of "negating the premise" -- the premise being that America is literally screwing China. This whole sketch is nothing more than a vehicle for the comedians to make a broad anal sex joke. They even follow the "rule of three," to maximize it's accessibility.

I'm not sure that we want to go down the road where we factcheck Saturday Night Live every Sunday afternoon. But for what it's worth, comedian Andy Cobb offered me some food for thought, via Twitter on this matter, saying, "I actually think it's fair to factcheck comics doing topical bits. Otherwise Limbaugh gets a pass, yknow?" and "I mean, you can't factcheck a joke or a punchline, but you might factcheck a premise and a setup."

All of which is true, I suppose. But it's worth pointing out that the sort of comedy Cobb makes is a unique animal. Cobb's Public Service Administration produces hilarious satire, but it's comedy that hinges on being well informed about a topic. For instance, their take on Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza's "Mouthpiece Theatre" is fantastic, but wouldn't work with an audience unfamiliar with the two reporters' callow belief that their journalistic perch makes them funny, or the Washington Post's struggles with creating a web-based brand identity. I suspect this joke would not play well on NBC's affiliate in Des Moines:

On top of that, Cobb often lends his considerable talents to advocacy. His comedic premises account for facts because he is in the business of "making the case" for things. That's what's on display in this spot for Health Care For America Now, sending up the way insurance companies arbitrarily change the rules on their consumers:

Of course, the mass consumption version of this comedic ethos is seen on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, both of which do a great job of informing their viewers because their stock in trade is penetrating and demystifying media narratives and laying them bare.

Everything I've read from SNL writers describing how their comedic sausage gets made indicates that they do not feel any sort of higher obligation to "making the case" for one particular point of view. Similarly, they don't often apply themselves to decoding media narratives -- because that would get in the way of the anal sex jokes. We could argue whether SNL is passing on the chance to create a better or more trenchant or more "dangerous" brand of sketch comedy, but I think what's unavoidable is that Saturday Night Live has its own unique set of priorities, and they include preparing a show that puts their guest host to his or her best use and putting the talents of their own character-driven comedians on display. (I think if we were to fact-check Kristen Wiig's "Penelope" character, many of her claims would not hold up to scrutiny. Still, LET'S NOT GET WOLF BLITZER INVOLVED, OKAY?)

Nevertheless, I think that going forward, we're going to see the factcheck fetish continue to be applied to Saturday Night Live. There are two things that are driving this. First and foremost, legitimate news organizations are, more and more, repurposing SNL's content as a cheap way to kill a few minutes every hour. For example, ABC News's This Week devotes a whole portion of its weekly broadcast to the antics of late-night comedians. By the end of today, MSNBC might well show that cold open three or four times, unless their prudishness gets the better of them. No one intends SNL's content to stand in as the literal truth, but as long as comedy is appearing on the same platform as news, people are going to treat it as fair game for high levels of scrutiny.

The other reason new outlets are likely to fact-check comedy shows is that it makes them look tough, at a time when the public does not have a lot of faith that they are capable of holding anyone accountable anymore. Organizations such as Politifact and FactCheck.org have risen to fill that gap. And now, we're often treated to the spectacle of news organizations citing these outside political factcheckers, which always makes me wonder what's wrong with their own stable of journalists! Watching a spokesman for Politifact come on teevee to talk about what's true and what's not is a lot like walking into a Starbucks and finding out that they've outsourced the boiling of water to a contractor.

That might be a pretty good premise for a joke actually, but I'm not sure it would play all that well at 11:30pm, live from New York.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Bill Mann: A Dobbs Campaign? Battle-Scarred Radio Pro Dave Ross Reveals What Lou Can Expect

2009-11-23T13:36:31Z

Several polls have shown recently that even the most popular radio talk-show hosts (the Limbaughs and Dobbses) who trade in politics on their shows would never get elected to public office.

(OK, except for maybe in two or three Congressional districts in Texas or South Carolina.)

And that's probably why they don't try. Either that or the huge pay cut being elected to office would mean.

Take it from Dave Ross, a moderate/liberal who's been doing a popular talk show in Seattle for over 15 years. He tried running once, and he'll tell you: It ain't pretty. It's much easier -- and safer -- to sit in the cozy confines of a radio studio and dispense political opinions.

Ross, whose clever 90-second commentaries are heard on over 200 CBS Radio Network affiliates around the country (including KCBS in San Francisco and WCBS in New York City) sums up his run for a suburban Seattle Congressional seat thusly:

"When you go into politics," he shrugs, "You give people license to lie about you."

Ross, who was asked to run -- and did so reluctantly -- by the local Democratic Party (he won the Dem primary easily) says this without bitterness, adding, "Running for office also gives you empathy for those candidates of both parties who do."

Ross lost a narrow race to unctuous Republican GOP incumbent Dave "The Sheriff" Reichert in Washington state's 8th C.D. by a narrow margin five years ago. Reichert is a former lawman and George Bush enabler who takes credit for solving the grisly Green River murders.

Ross, a courtly, witty and articulate guy with a great set of pipes, is also the star of Seattle's Gilbert & Sullivan ensemble. He's not overtly or astringently political, as so many talk hosts today are. Perhaps that's partly because he remembers first-hand the bruising political arena. Other talkers (q.v., Lou "The Birther" Dobbs) who are considering (or hinting at) a political run might want to pay attention to Ross.

Ross now manages a chuckle at one campaign memory: "I'd just returned from visiting the troops in Iraq when I was photographed. I hadn't showered in three days." In fact," he smiles, "I looked like a sex predator. Guess which picture the GOP used in their ads."

Ross, who quickly returned to radio after his House loss (KIRO Radio in Seattle welcomed him back with open arms), smiles when he recalls one TV ad the Republican National Committee ran against him because of his opposition to Bush's "Star Wars" program. It included the grizzled-looking photo, of course.

"It had a shot of the Space Needle, a simulated nuclear winter and the announcer intoned ominously, "You wouldn't want to live in Dave Ross' Seattle.'" Charming, n'est-ce pas?

Ross, who's also been Charles Osgood's fill-in on CBS Radio for years, is an empathetic voice in a cold business. Ross said this on his local radio show recently when Seattle's Boeing outsourced hundreds of aircraft jobs to union-averse South Carolina:

"It's the first time Boeing planes won't be assembled here. Now Seattle workers know how people in Detroit must feel."

So go ahead and run for office, Lou. You'll find out how Dave Ross feels.

Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup

2009-11-22T03:55:28Z

Misrepresenting what I said during an appearance on Countdown this week, NewsBusters claims that I'm trying to deny Glenn Beck his "constitutionally protected free speech." Wrong. What I said is that words have tremendous power -- they can inspire and they can incite. There's a reason you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. But even though Glenn Beck is shouting "fire" in a crowded, anxious country, I specifically said that the right response to his steady stream of lies, hate, and race-baiting -- all served up with a not-very-subtle undercurrent of violence -- is to put unrelenting pressure on his advertisers and his bosses. Pressure works. CNN dropped Lou Dobbs. I'm actually of two minds when it comes to Beck. Part of me resents spending even a second of my life thinking about him. But part of me recognizes that he's too dangerous to ignore.

Qanta Ahmed, MD: Guests of God: 2.5 Million Muslims Worship in Makkah, Saudi Arabia in This Year's Hajj

2009-11-19T15:30:36Z

They will arrive from over 160 countries; many have already departed for their journey as I write. Some are old, some young, some unborn, some about to leave this life and go into the next. They will all come, however, just as the Qu’ran predicted: “on every kind of camel”.

This week, Thursday marks the eve of Hajj, centered on the ancient city of Makkah, located in the Hijaz area of southwestern Saudi Arabia. Today more than 1.4 million Muslims will arrive by air. Often at the rate of 50,000 per hour, columns of robed pilgrims will stream through Jeddah’s specially designed, gleaming Hajj terminals. Others will arrive by land and even sea. In recent years, annually, Hajj has hosted more than 2.5 million Muslims as they engage in the most sacred rituals in Islam.

Hajj involves a series of rites, timed over several days. The rituals involve entering a spiritual state of purity through prayer, bathing and dress and immediately, paying homage to God at the Ka’ba in the Al Haram Mosque located at the center of Makkah. In the days to come, millions at a time will circumambulate this extraordinary cuboid building (draped in a black embroidered veil), which has stood for four millennia in the center of what was, for so long, a caravan stop for nomadic merchants.

The Ka’aba is a 49 ft square cuboid “House of God” which Abraham himself built, with guidance from the Archangel Gabriel. After circulating this building which seems as if to emanate an electrifying charge in the atmosphere around it, Muslims move en masse to supplicate in the near by Mina environ, home to the semi-permanent ‘Tent City” where the entire gathering resides for several days. A number of other rituals follow, including standing in prayer on the plain of Arafat where the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) gave his final sermon to his followers and God is believed to be closest to his worshippers at this site. After the exhausting day, considered the pinnacle of Hajj, pilgrims spend a night in prayer in the plain of Muzdallifah, outdoors. At first dawn, the millions begin the march towards a dramatic denunciation of Iblis, the fallen angel -- Satan -- symbolized in the stoning of three pillars at Jamaraat. Finally, reborn, pilgrims again return to Makkah, simulating Hagar’s desperate searching for water for her crying child, and soon after, bid farewell to their Maker by circumambulating the Ka’aba once more. With a final glance at the Ka’aba, Muslims pray they may return to this celestial place once more before death and depart the city limits at once.

Much of Islam is based on orthopraxy and not orthodoxy. Hajj is perhaps most emblematic of this theme. Muslims do not go to Hajj for scholarship, rather they go to observe important rituals, which capture the actions of both the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) and the Prophet Abraham.

Islam’s most important rite has been unfolding for almost 1500 years since the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) first performed the Islamic Hajj. Preparations for the colossal event this year have been underway for months, especially fevered in the current climate of global H1N1 pandemic influenza. The King of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz Al Saud -- in his nation’s role as the Custodian for the Two Holy Cities in Islam (Makkah and Madinah) -- takes Hajj responsibilities very seriously. Safeguarding the pilgrims, the ‘Guests of God’, is an act of grace considered zakat (Islamic charity). It is within the Muslim world an unparalleled privilege to serve these Guests. Each year the Kingdom expends billions of riyals in preparation for every imaginable detail such a mass gathering presents, from healthcare, security, food, water, accommodations, emergency response services, immigration and even repatriation of those who faithful who pass away engaged in the rigors of Hajj.

Unlike Olympic Games, Hajj planners do not have a seven year period for languid preparations. Hajj is annual, allowing at most, a nine month lead-time until pilgrims begin to gather for each new subsequent Hajj season. Planners move fast, and must be agile to a world where SARS can appear one year and Avian Flu another. The degree of international collaboration involved in coordinating 160 nations and their preparations for sending pilgrims is in itself a mammoth undertaking, especially when new infections or emerging diseases threaten to impact Hajj travelers. This year, King Abdullah himself is intensely engaged in pandemic preparations, meeting with Hajj planners personally. He is deeply concerned about the impact of a global pandemic on Hajj travels and feels personally accountable for the welfare of Hajj visitors to his country. His concern is manifested in unprecedented investment and access to the world’s leading experts in mass gathering medicine, pandemic preparedness and crowd dynamics. Many of these experts are themselves Saudi nationals who have acquired extraordinary expertise in mass gatherings through their Hajj management experience and research. Nonetheless even though H1N1 is a serious concern, pandemic or not, Hajj must go on.

Hajj is eternally a place of dynamism, through time and space, and essentially has never come to a halt, since it first began. Hajj is the largest mass gathering in the world and the most culturally and geographically diverse. Representing an extraordinary congress of humanity, anyone who has experienced Hajj understands the diversity embodying Islam. My own Hajj would emerge to be an emphatically transformative experience, leading to a new area of academic interest, the kernel of my first nonfiction book and a growing spirituality which had eluded me despite years of ritualistic observation of Islam.

Hajj is costly and laborious and so Muslims must prepare and save before they can go. Muslims must be of adequate means, go on their own finances devoid of loans or debts and must be able-bodied, healthy and strong. Islam strongly discourages the weak, ill or frail to go or the poor, to avoid any additional affliction on already challenged lives. But those who have the financial and physical wherewithal are in fact expected to perform Hajj once in this lifetime, both men and women are equally accountable to perform Hajj.

It is said one can never go to Hajj until one receives an ‘invitation’ from God. If the invitation comes, Muslims must heed it. Each Muslim who makes Hajj usually has a story which captures the serendipity in which the remote possibility of an imagined Hajj becomes reality. Whatever the circumstances, in many cultures Hajj is pursued only when close to the end of life, in preparation for the hereafter and thus follows a lifetime of increasing piety. In cultures, including SE Asia’s Indonesia, for instance, and also Malaysia, many pilgrims are often of a younger age, reflecting perhaps more affluence but also the cultural preferences of marrying a woman who has already performed Hajj.

Until I had entered the forecourt of the Al Haram Mosque in Makkah, I had only ever been part of one mass gathering. It came to mind as I confronted the Ka’ba. I felt small in the crowds, remembering I had once watched U2 perform their ‘Pop’ concert in the now demolished Shea Stadium. As Bono moved through the crowd of 50,000, I grasped the meaning of celebrity. Several years later, as I approached the Ka’aba, I began to feel the edges of Divinity. I was walking on the ground floor of the three-level mosque, each floor of which has a capacity of 750,000. God was bigger than Bono.

Way bigger.

This introduction to the scale of humanity and the insignificance of my own dimensions was an important reminder of the fragility of life and the scale of creation. Understanding my ‘smallness’ was good for an overgrown ego. But even more so, Hajj was key for me feeling at home in Islam and finding my place. As a westernized British female Muslim of Pakistani heritage who had made a home in New York City, I finally felt at home at Hajj surrounded by Muslims who looked and spoke pretty much like I did and were ultimately just as hybrid as myself. Too often, when we are introduced to religion in our childhoods it is served alongside culture without distinction. Cultural mores often overwhelm spiritual ones. Allowing cultural expectations to fall away by observing Muslims from every culture helped me at last engage in Islam.

This week, as we watch the pilgrims engage in their rites on CNN with Wolf Blitzer or on Al Jazeera with Riz Khan, one theme will transcend all others: cooperation. And at a time when the world is so lacking in both the will and the opportunity for cooperation, this is a key time to be reminded of this basic human quality which preserves our societies, wherever and whatever they may be.

How do 2.5 million manage to perform all these complex steps and movements in confined spaces without the crowds disintegrating into utter and irretrievable chaos? The answer is that everyone is part of a smaller, informal group and these clutches of worshipers are very much enjoined to conduct their Hajj rites in the spirit of collaboration and concern for the weaker, less able: a wonderful metaphor for the world beyond Hajj.

Scholars have long discussed the innate meanings of Hajj in a number of metaphorical contexts. The best place I have read about that is in Robert Bianchi’s seminal academic work “Guests of God: Pilgrimage and Politics in the Islamic World”. Bianchi helps us understand Hajj is a symbolic metaphor for how all Muslims can collaborate to contribute to peaceful, ordered and supportive society. We must do this whether we choose our homes in Manhattan County or Majma in the Najd.

Because Hajj ultimately subsumes all cultures and all races, its messages are universal and global. For the short few days that the millions gather, in the eyes of their Maker and one another, they are equal in clothing, status, vantage and rank. The crowd is uniform and cannot be distinguished. An Egyptian professor of English literature prays next to an African American nurse aide from Newark, New Jersey, an Arab prince prays abreast with a shepherd, a reformed Mumbai gangster prays, sobbing, comforted by a Lahori polo-player. For these short dynamic days, in the world of Hajj, they are equal. This after all, is how humanity was intended in the context of Divine ideals.

Never has there been a more important time for Muslims to engage in greater introspection, self-evaluation and insight. We face a Muslim world rife with conflicts, sectarian hatreds, misogyny and injustice. We face misunderstanding, Islamophobia and exploitation by nefarious elements who come from within our midst and pose as Muslims when their conduct and code could not be more alien.

As the millions move through the Hajj rituals this week, let us all aspire to greater humility, courage and engagement to improve and advance the constructive contributions Muslims can make around the world, while helping the less advantaged among us. Lets us aspire to being conduits for benevolent Islamic ideals and instruments of clarity in times of crisis and confusion. Let us do that wherever we may be, whomever we are, however we can. Let us serve our societies as Muslims are enjoined: through creative contribution and as Hajj teaches us, through cooperation and a deep sense of public service, service to our societies. Hajj reminds us that we have three duties as Muslims: duty to ourselves, duty to our Maker and duty to our society.

Society waits, Muslims.

Will we rise to the task and meet our duty to society?

Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs Discuss CNN, Argue Over Health Care Reform (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T10:28:56Z

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart welcomed former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs with a Mariachi band because... why not? Over a long interview, only portions of which aired, Stewart and Dobbs discussed the newsman's decision to quit on the air... or not quit on the air... or come to some sort of mutual understanding tied up in contracts that dissolved the relationship between CNN and the controversial anchor. Dobbs basically offered that CNN "wanted to move in another direction," to which Stewart replied, "I see the direction they're going in, I believe it's called down."

Then, praising Dobbs for having "abhorrent and wrong" views that are nevertheless "consistent," Stewart pressed Dobbs on the issues he invoked in his "I'm quitting, in some contractual fashion" speech: "The issue seems to be -- and you allude to it in your resignation speech -- that the winds of change are blowing this country -- people have, apparently, lost their minds. there seems to be a panic that we have lost the fabric of our society and I'm having trouble getting a handle on what has happened that is so drastic that people would think it's tyranny or fascism or Hitler-esque."

Dobbs noted that "what has happened" goes back to previous administrations, and that the Bush administration fostered a great "indifference" to the way policy impacted the lives of Americans. Which strikes me as, uhm... suddenly very generalist! Stewart basically countered by saying that it seems to be the coming of the Obama administration that has set everyone's "hair on fire." Dobbs cited the "Obama health care legislation" as something that's uniquely scaring people about the current administration with the prospect of fundamental change.

Stewart countered by pointing out that there's really no such thing as "Obama health care legislation" ("Obama hasn't really said anything," Stewart said, "to his discredit."), adding, "We're not a fragile country. This idea that somehow getting a health care plan through takes us back to the days pre-revolution is bunk. There's a fear out there that seems irrational." Stewart contended that individuals like David Addington, architect of the unitary executive and the torture policy in the previous administration, represented to him a more frightening agent of change than an administration that seems to, essentially, want to "expand Medicare."

Dobbs allowed that he thought that "part of that fear is simply catching up with the events of some years ago." Stewart observed, "Why do they always catch up to the fears during the Democratic administrations? It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show has made extended versions of the interview available.

PART TWO: Dobbs raises a good point about the lack of priority on ending the unemployment crisis, but insists that the current state of play -- where one party controls the legislature and the White House -- doesn't allow any avenue for the "expression of frustration." Stewart counters by pointing out that elections are the avenue for this expression, and that people are confusing "losing an election" with tyranny.

Dobbs goes on to discuss at length his contention that government is best led from the center, and that the past two administrations are scaring the center. Stewart's contention is that the crazy anger spilling out into the street isn't centrist, noting the lack of angry protesters carrying signs that read "Be reasonable!"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

PART THREE:

In this final part, Dobbs and Stewart wind down their discussion, with Dobbs continuing to press for a return to centrism, and insist that the nation is in a "delicate" state. Stewart won't sign on to the idea that the nation is somehow fragile. "It's trumped-up fear that's being used as a wedge."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

J. Richard Cohen: To Bill O'Reilly: You Lose Dobbs Bet

2009-11-18T12:39:11Z

To: Bill O'Reilly
The O'Reilly Factor
Fox News Network

Dear Bill,

You lost the bet. Time to pay up!

When I appeared on your show in July, you were so certain that the Southern Poverty Law Center's call for CNN to fire Lou Dobbs was a waste of time that you bet $10,000 (with the proceeds going to Habitat for Humanity) that it wouldn't happen.

"CNN's never going to fire him -- you know that," you said.

I told you that I disagreed, because I wasn't as cynical as you. I believed that if enough people spoke out -- and they did -- that CNN would do the right thing.

I expect you will argue that Lou didn't get fired -- that he got fed up and quit the network he had been with for three decades.

But as a litigator, I'd like to present Exhibit A: Dobbs' $8 million severance package, which was reported today by the New York Post. I think you'll agree that Mr. Murdoch's Post would never report such a thing were it not, indeed, a fact.

And would CNN fork over $8 million -- enough money to pay for 13 miles of electric border fence -- to an employee who simply wanted to walk away from his multimillion-dollar contract because he couldn't constrain his opinions on a news show?

I doubt it.

Maybe your fall-back position is that it wasn't a real bet. I don't know. But I think that if you'll stop spinning for a moment, you'll agree that in the court of public opinion, you lose. I know it hurts deeply to be wrong. (Although Lou won't admit it, it happens to the best of us). You can be assured that your loss will be a big win for a family in need of housing.

CNN did the right thing. Now it's your turn.

Sincerely yours,

J. Richard Cohen

Jackson Williams: Obama Bows, Conservatives Bitch, Reality Bites

2009-11-17T15:10:26Z

In the 1980's, billionaire conservative gadfly Ross Perot received the prestigious Winston Churchill Award at a lavish Dallas dinner. Prince Charles himself came across the pond for the event, and local high society, Republican to a fault, rushed around town in the two weeks beforehand booking lessons on how to curtsy in front of royalty.

Never mind that America fought a war to escape British tyranny. The social set is big on ceremony, and this was as big as it gets.

Fast forward a quarter-century. President Obama bowed this week when greeting Japanese Emperor Akihito, and the conservative media and blogosphere went positively apoplectic. The co-host of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy, prattled on about how Americans haven't bowed in over 200 years. Yeah, right.

Doocy is dim-witted, but reprehensible best describes Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of the far-right Washington Times (owned by the religious Moonies.). He writes in his November 17 column that the president's predilection for bowing is because "he was sired by a Kenyan father" and "born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World," and thus "has no natural instinct or blood impulse" for what this nation represents.

Does he mean "sired" as in the breeding term for animals? Little doubt.

As we see from the images below, however, Eisenhower bowed before De Gaulle (a Frenchman, sacré bleu!), Nixon bowed before Emperor Hirohito (who'd ordered the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and George W. Bush actually kissed the Saudi Arabian King, something his former press secretary Dana Perino admitted to Wolf Blitzer on CNN was "the customary thing to do."

I'd say damn near making out with a foreign leader beats a ceremonial bow any day, wouldn't you?

Even Bob Dylan, arguably the world's most famous Jewish artist, knelt before a seated and throned Pope John Paul ll after performing in his Holy presence. The Bard was not expressing subservience to the Catholic faith and its leading acolyte.

Yet when Obama engages in these same kinds of traditional acts, right-wing heads explode. What blithering, racist fools these mortals be.

Homeless Job Seeker Gets Helping Hand From CNN Viewer

2009-11-17T14:14:46Z

Two weeks ago, CNN profiled Tony Briones, a recently homeless Los Angeles man who had exhausted all his resources while looking for work. Now, the network reports, Briones is receiving surprise help in his job search from a CNN viewer who volunteers at Chrysalis, a non-profit organization helping the homeless and people recently released from prison find jobs.

WATCH THE VIDEO:

Get HuffPost Impact On Facebook and Twitter!

Read more: Homeless, Jobs, Chrysalis, Cnn, Impact News

Marty Kaplan: Bra Helps Fight Breast Cancer

2009-11-16T14:18:09Z

Now that CNN has put Lou Dobbs out to pasture, you'd think that The Most Trusted Name in News would make the reporting of facts -- you know, the practice formerly known as journalism -- the hallmark of its brand. Dream on.

This past Saturday, morning hosts Betty Nguyen and TJ Holmes introduced a segment with CNN's tech guru Mario Armstrong this way: Betty: "There is a bra in fact that will soon be on the market, and the claim is that it can help women fight breast cancer." TJ: "We've got a lot of questions about this one. If it works, you know what, this is one of the greatest inventions ever."

This is what journalistic scrupulousness looks like these days. The anchors were implying, Even if our bosses suspect this story is a crock, they're making us do it anyway, because they think it'll stop you from changing the channel. As long as we cover our butts with words like "claim" and "if," CNN thinks it's perfectly kosher to give some quackery about preventing cancer, like some demagoguery about death panels, four minutes of airtime.

The "Bra helps fight breast cancer" segment turned out to be shameless product placement for Demron, a lightweight radiation shielding material patented by a Florida surgeon and manufactured by his company. The material protects its wearers, among them medical professionals and their patients, from X rays and other radiation. According to the story, if a woman with breast cancer is undergoing brachytherapy -- in which radioactive seeds are implanted in her breast -- then wearing a Demron-lined bra might protect her family and others she comes near from radiation that could be emitted by the pellets in her body.

Whether that's true or not, it's not how the CNN segment was teased. That disparity may be why TJ said to Mario, puzzled, "A lot of women will be listening to this and think, ok, I go get this bra, then that can cut my chances of breast cancer." It may be why Betty interrupted Mario, asking him to "explain to me very clearly, how does it reduce the risk of breast cancer for those who maybe don't have it."

Mario's wan answer: "Yeah, well, see, I think that's still what needs to be worked out, they don't have a defined answer for that just yet."

By the end of the segment, it turns out that the women who could, maybe, hypothetically be helped by this bra are women who "have known risks in the family for breast cancer." Why this bra might help them -- will shielding them from sources of everyday background radiation, like microwaves and color TVs, really prevent their breast cancer genes from being expressed? -- Mario doesn't say. He does say, "A lot of testing still needs to be done, but they got the go ahead to move forward.... But we're talking about high-risk situations... If you were to wear this bra, it may -- hasn't been proven -- but it may be able to help."

"Interesting," says Betty. "This is interesting stuff," echoes TJ. I wish by "interesting" they were dog-whistling to Mario, "You gullible shill." I wish by "interesting" they meant their segment producer and writer to hear, "You reckless hope-mongers." I wish by "interesting" they were signaling to CNN's audience, "We apologize for the insulting, unforgivable way this network just jerked you and your loved ones around by exploiting a life-or-death topic as an excuse for corporate cheerleading."

CNN is far from the only offender. As the independent nonprofit HealthNewsReview.org documents on its website, the morning health news segments on ABC, CBS and NBC regularly and "unquestioningly promote new drugs and new technologies [and] feed the 'worried well' by raising unrealistic expectations of unproven technologies that may produce more harm than good."

On the day before CNN's cancer-preventing bra story ran, University of Minnesota professor Gary Schwitzer, the publisher of Health News Review, told Bob Garfield, host of NPR's On the Media, that a lot of these network TV health stories aren't just bad journalism; they're actually dangerous, malicious, sickening. Garfield asked him if there's any evidence that this kind of coverage -- "this dreck" -- causes real harm. Yes, he said, reports show very clearly the impact of health news coverage, both good and bad, on consumers of that information.

"What you have described for me is a disgrace," Garfield told him. "I believe it is," Schwitzer agreed. "I believe that we have given over the airwaves to these [media] companies that are abusing that privilege and misinforming the public -- inaccurately, in an imbalanced way and incompletely. Yeah, that's how you would define the disgrace."

Health News Review recently announced that after three-and-a-half years, they're not going to review TV health news segments anymore. No matter how bad some of the stories are, the networks just don't care.

Coming up after the break: Tighty-whities help fight prostate cancer. Now this.

This is my column from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. You can read more of my columns here, and e-mail me there if you'd like.

Jerry Lewis: Get Out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Turner tells CU Audience

2009-11-16T11:00:39Z

BOULDER -- Ted Turner's been called lots of things in his career - media mogul, entrepreneur, philanthropist, billionaire, rancher, environmentalist, peacenik and "Mouth of the South."

He brought a little of all of those to a packed room at the University of Colorado Friday as part of the Entrepreneurs Unplugged series organized by CU's Silicon Flatirons Center and the Law School.

Before his interview, Turner was presented with Silicon Flatiron's inaugural Entrepreneurs for Good Prize, a crystal award that appropriately encased a buffalo.

Having just returned from a pheasant hunting trip in South Dakota, home to part of his two million acres of ranch land, the founder of CNN and author of Call Me Ted told the campus audience that if he were looking for a job today, it would be in "clean, renewable energy." It will be a growth industry, Turner predicted, because "we're going to win because we are right."

Next stop on his travels, in fact, is the nation's capital, where he'll be lobbying for a clean energy bill.

Despite the tough odds of overcoming objections of the powerful coal and oil industries, Turner compared his new environmental mission to the 1980s when he was trying to convince Congress to open up the nation's TV airwaves to new satellite technologies.

At the time, he said, all three major TV networks were happy -- carving up major sports events like the NFL between them, producing just 2½ hours of live news each day and reaping hefty profits.

"I wasn't happy," he said, "because I wasn't one of them."

Turner said he knew he was gambling everything on his vision for a 24-hour news channel at CNN, but "I knew with certainty that it was going to work." Just getting your news at 6 p.m. was "inconvenient" if nothing else.

As a hard-working businessman for all of his life -- working for his father's advertising billboard business when he was 12 -- Turner admitted that the 1996 merger of Turner Broadcasting System with Time-Warner came about partly because he was just "tired." As a large Time Warner stockholder, he lost billions when the stock collapsed after Time Warner merged with AOL.

When he owned both the Atlanta Braves and the Hawks, he would leave his TV business offices and head straight to the games, which turned into 18-hour days. "So I got too tired so I said screw it -- I'm done!"

Co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Turner minces no words calling for the United States to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now chairman of Turner Enterprises, which oversees all of his current businesses, including the Ted's Montana Grill restaurants and ranch land in 12 states, including Colorado, Turner said customers always must be important if you're running a business for the long term.

"I became a peacenik," he said, because when he was running CNN and the U.S. started bombing people around the world, they were "bombing my customers."

The Silicon Flatirons format is an initial interview by Brad Bernthal, entrepreneurship director for the center. And Bernthal had his hands full trying to keep his guest on track with several questions as Turner would launch into new subjects.

At one point, Turner said if the U.S. just has to be at war, why not go with an entrepreneurial spirit and attack Canada. They would surrender quickly, he joked, and double the land mass of the U.S.

To anyone in the media, Turner said, "I really was just joking about attacking Canada."

Turner reads the Economist every week to stay up on world events, and he likes newspapers. But he also said the newspaper industry model is similar to the polluting coal industry -- "it's an obsolete technology." He wondered aloud who'll eventually be able to pay to gather the news. "The bloggers don't have news organizations," he said.

In the next 50 years, Turner said, "we have to be smarter than we've ever been.

"If we heat up the world seven to eight degrees, we're toast."

When it comes to new technologies, Turner drew laughs admitting he's an old "fuddy-duddy" struggling with too many dials on TV to figure out how to watch it. But at 70 years old, he admits he's feeling pretty good, running his ranches, fly-fishing and campaigning to protect the environment.

Michelle Bart: Young CNN Hero Teaches Girls to "Just Yell Fire"

2009-11-16T02:59:26Z

The Northwest Coalition Against Trafficking (NWCAT) will be hosting a public conference on Saturday, January 9, 2010 in Portland, Oregon.
Among the conference headliners are Vancouver, Washington resident and 2007 CNN Hero Dallas Jessup. Jessup is 17-year-old expert martial artist who grew a community service project to fight predators into a Million Girl Revolution across 45 countries with her non-profit, Just Yell Fire. At 14, she produced a film to teach teen girls to protect themselves from abduction and sexual assault; it was one of the 10 most downloaded production length films worldwide in 2007. Her book, Young Revolutionaries Who Rock, An Insider's Guide to Saving the World One Revolution at a Time won the Best Books Award 2009 for Young Adult Non-Fiction from USA Books as a Groundbreaking Call to Teen Activism.

Jessup was inducted into the Hall of Fame for Caring Americans, won the Jefferson Award for Community Service, the Caring Award, the Seventeen Magazine Mission Award and many others. She appears regularly in the national media including Good Morning America, the Today Show, Fox & Friends and elsewhere. She travels an average of 10,000 miles a month, including a 12-city rural India speaking tour teaching girls how to avoid slave traders for the sex trafficking industry. Jessup has keynoted at the FBI National Academy, the Mensa national conference, and her program is a for-credit course at MIT. She is a freshman at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee as a McKelvey Scholar for Social Entrepreneurship.

Dallas Jessup will host a breakout session on January 9, 2010 at the Northwest Conference Against Trafficking titled "Just Yell Fire!". To learn more about Dallas and Just Yell Fire visit www.dallasjessup.com.

"The NWCAT Conference Look Beneath The Surface will offer something for the entire family," said Rebecca Cook, conference cochair. The Emcee for the day is Priya David, Host of "Keep it Local" and anchor/reporter for KOIN6.

The conference sponsors include: Soroptimist International, Oregonians Against Trafficking Humans, Transitions Global International, Not For Sale Campaign, The State of Oregon, Legislative Representative Tina Kotek, Clark County Sheriff's Office, City of Portland Bureau of Police, Detective Division/Vice Detail, The County of Multnomah, Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, Oregon State Human Trafficking Task Force, Multnomah County Commissioner Diane McKeel, Helping Heroes National Vigil For Hope, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children / TAKE25 Campaign, Portland State University's OATH Students, InstantAmber, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).

To register or more information please go to www.NWCAT.org.

John Lundberg: Newsweek Ed's Poem Skewers Lou Dobbs

2009-11-15T07:12:35Z

Lou Dobbs resigned from CNN on Wednesday night, and rumor has it that the immigration-obsessed nightly news anchor will be following the Glenn Beck plan: if your shtick appeals to the fringe, why not head for a network with no qualms about stoking some far right-wing rage and cashing in on it? Don't be surprised if we soon see Dobbs broadcasting live from the border with a flag in one hand and a rifle in the other.

On Thursday, Newsweek's longtime senior editor Jerry Adler published a poem in honor of the occasion entitled "Goodbye, Mr. Dobbs."

So wily Lou has picked the locks
That kept him in his padded box
And tiptoed off, in just his socks.
Or should we say, weighed anchor?

So now we wonder where he docks
To whom he'll lead his rabid flocks:
The Pop that loves his famous Vox
And adores his rancor.

A network just for frat-boy jocks?
Where aliens are put in stocks
And viewers pelt them with big rocks
Before each half-time show?

Could it be UPN, or Cox?
They'd have to open up Fort Knox
We know Lou's crazy, like a Fox.
I'd really love to know.

As far as light verse goes, the poem is quite good--if only for the image of the stately anchor tiptoeing off "in just his socks." The form is suitable and the rhythm is on point. And it's no mistake that "Fox" is capitalized in the penultimate line. Adler is hinting at Dobbs' likely future employer--which would make Lou the second Fox News anchor to be effectively skewered in verse.

The hyperbolic portrait of a "frat-boy" network that Adler conjures up in the third stanza drew the ire of Scott Whitlock at the right-wing watchdog site News Busters. Whitlock fired back by dredging up an old Adler quote on the murdering Menendez brothers (remember them?) and asking the rather bizarre question "So, Adler is tougher on Dobbs than he is on two murderers?" Ok then. It's safe to say that we can count on Mr. Whitlock to follow Dobbs to wherever he drops that expensive anchor of his.

In the meantime, Adler's poem is crying out for more verses. Feel free to add yours in the comments.

Catie Lazarus: Top 10 Reasons This Woman Can't Write for Late Night Comedy Shows

2009-11-12T20:07:00Z

In the New York Times, Bill Carter writes ,"very few women make it inside the writing rooms for late-night television hosts, despite that women make up a larger proportion of their audience than men. There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” none on “Late Show with David Letterman,” none on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien.”"

Based on his article and Nell Scovell's personal account in Vanity Fair, I have come to understand why the odds are stacked against my wedging my paw in the door. I still have hope (also known as delusion).

The Top 10 Reasons This Woman Can't Write for Late Night Comedy Variety Shows

10) I will be overcome by desire for my male comedy writing peers
and superiors, who are known for their off-white, pasty skin and muscle tonus
minimus, akin to albino, soft shell turtles.

9) My lady sensibility is limited to menstruation
(hilarious), babies (adorable), and unicorns mating
(adorably hilarious).

8) Due to my genetic make-up, I am physically incapable to
handle the job, considering the heavy manual labor required in touch typing.

7) The number one rule of comedy is fitting in and I sometimes buck the uniform of orthopedic New Balance sneakers,
hoodies, jeans, and t-shirts, with ironic catchphrases like, "Pro-Cashmere. Pro-Cotton.
Pro-Choice."

6) The only requests I get as
a female comedy writer are to discuss sexism in comedy, instead of political satire about how Sarah Palin is so sick she
gives swine flu or scripts like Crones:
The Musical! or commercials, maybe, Femedy: A bubble gum
birth control for tweens who don't want to ovulate. Period.

5) Late-night comedy requires a male point-of-view, and girls,
even ones closer to menopause than teething, can only express themselves in
glittery pink (which, fyi, typing in does
not fund cancer research).

4) As a lady, I automatically cost less, and in a business where money talks, how will I be taken seriously? I mean funnily.

3) I didn't graduate from Harvard so I lack the cultural capital to craft the erudite, intellectual fodder
typical of late-night comedies, like the masturbating bear or gift
wrapped genitalia.

2) Hollywood would have to make major changes to catch up with
medicine, law, even engineering, in its hiring practices, and we all know how open television is to change. It only took 30 years (and millions of dollars) before CNN let Native
American Lou Dobbs quit. (I mean, leave to spend time with his family.)

1) I'd have to be funny and learn
how to play Dungeons and Dragons.

Andy Borowitz: Carrie Prejean Storms Off Own Sex Tape; Calls Vibrator's Behavior 'Inappropriate'

2009-11-12T18:23:39Z

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) - One day after clashing with CNN host Larry King, former Miss California Carrie Prejean showed another flash of anger today, storming off the set of her own sex tape.

While it is unclear what precisely set Ms. Prejean off, she seems to have been riled by the behavior of her vibrator, which appeared in the tape with her.

"I'm sorry, but you are being inappropriate," she snapped at the vibrator before leaving.

The vibrator, which was left to complete the remainder of the sex tape on its own, could not be reached for comment. More here.

Mark Potok: Earth to Lou: It Could Have Been Different

2009-11-12T17:46:47Z

It didn't have to end this way for Lou Dobbs. He could have been a contender.

But Dobbs, a supremely self-confident man who often mentions his Harvard education in private conversation, just wouldn't listen. Time after time, as the "Lou Dobbs Tonight" show he has hosted on CNN since 2003 grew more rabidly critical of undocumented immigrants, he was warned of the kind of people he was putting on his show. He was told that many of the "facts" he was presenting just weren't so. At first, he was gently called out for his defamations of Latino immigrants, then, as his tone grew sharper still, he was subjected to all kinds of public criticism from human rights groups, the journalism trade press, even a leading New York Times financial columnist. Instead of righting his course, or even slightly moderating his tone, Dobbs called his critics "commies" and "fascists." He fudged facts, defended earlier falsehoods, and promoted racist conspiracy theories. He fumed.

It all ended last night, when Dobbs announced on his program that he was resigning from CNN effective immediately. In a moment of supreme irony, he complained that public political debate was now overtaken with "partisanship and ideology," and promised to use "the most honest and direct language possible" in whatever future role he plays in public life. For once, he did not attack his critics.

My colleagues at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and I were some of those critics, and early ones at that. I began speaking to Lou Dobbs in 2004, not many months after he started airing virtually nightly segments entitled "Broken Borders." By that time, he had already run "reports" complaining about "illegal aliens" getting free medical care, educating their children in public schools, committing sex crimes, getting breaks on college tuition, filling the prisons and spreading diseases.

To my surprise, Dobbs answered my very first call immediately. He was interested in what I had to say, he said, and responded to my warning that an upcoming guest had ties to white supremacy by canceling the appearance. He asked that I keep him apprised of any similar situations. He said he was all in favor of multiculturalism.

That kind of back-and-forth culminated in Dobbs' sending a five-person team from his show to the Montgomery, Ala., headquarters of the SPLC, in November 2004, after we contacted Dobbs about a guest who promoted the "Aztlan" conspiracy theory alleging a Mexican plot to "reconquer" the American Southwest. After much of our staff and I spent most of the day briefing Dobbs' people, they left saying that Dobbs planned a three-part series on extremism in America, and another on racism within the immigration restriction movement. And for a short time, Dobbs seemed open to hearing our criticisms and warnings. But that all seemed to end on his July 29, 2005, show, when he erupted over an SPLC report exposing racist elements in the Minuteman vigilante movement. Dobbs called us "despicable" and "reprehensible," although he did not dispute any of the facts we reported.

From there, things went south. That winter, we ran a story detailing members of extremist groups who Dobbs had put on his show. A few months later, we pointed out that in discussing the Aztlan conspiracy on the air, Dobbs used a map of the area Mexico supposedly coveted, explicitly attributed to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- a group that has described black people as "a retrograde species of humanity." Then, on March 6, 2007, I was quoted on NPR saying that Dobbs was helping to mainstream conspiracy theories and propaganda that originated in white supremacist hate groups. Enraged, Dobbs called me a few days later to say that the SPLC and I had no integrity, and that, henceforth, we would be "adversaries." A couple of weeks later, I went on Dobbs' show to point out that Chris Simcox -- the original founder of the Minuteman movement and a guest Dobbs had had on his air at least 17 times at that point -- had told his followers that he had personally seen Chinese Red Army troops maneuvering on the U.S./Mexican border in preparation for an invasion. Dobbs seemed to find that funny, but he didn't repudiate Simcox.

Then, on May 6, 2007, I was quoted in a "60 Minutes" profile of Dobbs. CBS' Lesley Stahl pointed out in the piece that Dobbs had claimed in 2005 that "an invasion of illegal aliens" was "threatening the health of many Americans" and followed that up with a report claiming that 7,000 new cases of leprosy had been identified in America in the prior three years. (The truth is that there were about 400 in the years in question, that leprosy is now an easily treatable disease, and that no one knew what role immigrants may have had in any leprosy case.) I criticized Dobbs' "journalism" in the piece, which sent Dobbs into a rage the next day on his own CNN show. He said he stood "100%" behind his bogus report, and he had his reporter re-identify the source of her allegations -- a right-wing fanatic named Madeleine Cosman, who the SPLC had earlier documented telling an audience that "most" Latino immigrant men "molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys and some in nuns." Cosman had no expertise in immigration or medicine.

The last time I was on Dobbs' show was on May 16 of that year, along with my boss, SPLC President Richard Cohen. (Our appearance followed by a day the printing of SPLC ads in The New York Times and USA Today calling on CNN President Jonathan Klein to retract Dobbs' false leprosy claim, as Dobbs himself refused to do so.) Our interview was preceded by a setup piece containing a completely new set of claims about leprosy. Now, Dobbs claimed that new cases of leprosy had "risen" to 166 in 2005. Nothing at all was said about the supposed 7,000 cases, and Dobbs never conceded any error at all. The mail we got after the show from Dobbs' supporters was memorable. "You people disgust me and I hope you burn in Hell," wrote one. "In memory of your appearance on Lou Dobbs, I will make a GENEROUS donation to a well known hate group in YOUR NAME." Another put it like this: "You can shove tolerance up your ass as far as possible. Hate is alive and growing!" And a third wrote to regret that cowboy days were over, otherwise "you and your associates would be hanging by a rope."

We fared a little better with The New York Times, where David Leonhardt wrote a long column concluding that "Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality." Around the same time, the Columbia Journalism Review concluded that Dobbs was "tamper[ing] with facts" and "pretending the confusion was someone else's fault." Dobbs' response to all of this was to attack SPLC and the Times, telling his CNN audience that he would tell them "who's really telling the truth and who the commies are and who the fascists are who have the temerity to attack me."

In the years since, SPLC has regularly written about Dobbs, documenting the real truth about his various claims and pointing out his role in poisoning the debate about immigration in the United States. Our point was never to stop a robust debate about immigration -- quite the contrary, we were all in favor of such a debate, but felt that it should be based on facts, not racist propaganda or conspiracy theories. Finally, in late July of this year, after Dobbs seemed to suggest that President Obama was not a U.S. citizen, SPLC President Cohen wrote CNN's Jonathan Klein to ask that Dobbs be fired. "Respectable news organizations should not employ reporters willing to peddle racist conspiracy theories and false propaganda," Cohen wrote. "It's time for CNN to remove Mr. Dobbs from the airwaves." The letter set off a chorus of similar demands from other human rights groups, and a movement by many of them to press that demand grew quickly. It concluded yesterday with Dobbs' departure.

Did it have to happen this way? Obviously not. But Dobbs never could hear anyone whose opinions varied from his own. When he was confronted by Stahl in the "60 Minutes" piece about his leprosy error, Dobbs response was typical. "Well, I can tell you this," he told Stahl. "If we reported it, it's a fact."

Stahl replied, "You can't tell me that. You did report it."

Dobbs: "Well, no, I just did."

Stahl: "How can you guarantee that to me?"

And then, this gem from Dobbs: "Because I'm the managing editor, and that's the way we do business. We don't make up numbers, Lesley, do we?"

As it turns out, he did. No longer, however, at CNN, "The Most Trusted in Name in News." Not any more. But it didn't have to be this way

Mark Morford: Lou Dobbs Sex Tape Shocker!

2009-11-12T14:41:58Z

The former CNN anchor calls a sex tape he made several years ago "the biggest mistake of my life."

"I swear to all of you reading this right now, when I made that tape I must've been completely drunk on some crazy illegal Mexican hoo-ha, high on some premium Colombian flake, or totally overstimulated by the thought that I might get shot at any minute by dangerous illegal aliens who have it in for me and know where I live, and now I fear for my life every single day because I am just one Terribly Important Person who says Dangerously Important Things," the controversial and widely disliked news anchor did not announce, in a bizarre, rambling letter on his personal blog, DobbsKnobs.com, which does not actually exist, but should.

"I would never make such an immoral thing today. I mean, who has the time? And the appropriate farm animals?"

Oddly echoing semi-famous Christian homophobe/former Miss California Carrie Prejean's words when she herself recently confessed to making a touching sex tape for a boyfriend, a tape allegedly involving nine stuffed pink bunnies, a frozen banana, and Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield," Dobbs went on to add, "[The tape] was for private use, meant only for the eyes of my personal armada of Mexican chambermaids, Chinese manservants, Indian website coders and the two or three Czech bodybuilders I keep around just so I can watch them lift heavy things and glisten in the sun.

"But does that justify what I did? No it does not. I am ashamed," he did not add, sweatily.

"Except for the thing with the frozen enchilada and the monkey. That was pretty awesome. Who knew monkeys were so dexterous? Skip to 14.33 if you want to see it. Damn, was I ever hammered! Woo!"