Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Lou Dobbs' Leprosy Lies Continue

Posted by Guest Blogger at 6:01 AM on June 7, 2007.


Katrina vanden Heuvel: Lou Dobbs still insists immigrants are responsible for bringing a new wave of leprosy across our borders even though he's wrong and no such leprosy outbreak exists.
lou01

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Katrina vanden Heuvel, originally appeared on The Nation

Last week, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt wrote of Lou Dobbs' tenuous relationship with the truth - "a somewhat flexible relationship with reality"- and his refusal to own up to an erroneous, fear-inducing report in violation of a basic journalistic creed.

It seems Dobbs wants to stick to a completely false assertion - first aired on his CNN program in 2005 and repeated again this May - that "there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past." Dobbs attributed this increase to "unscreened illegal immigrants."

Leonhardt reported that there have indeed been approximately 7,000 diagnosed cases - but not over the past three years as Dobbs would have viewers believe. Rather, these incidents occurred over a thirty-year period and have "dropped steadily" since a peak of 456 cases in 1983. "Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong," Leonhardt writes. But facts be damned, Dobbs is sticking by his numbers ("If we reported it, it's a fact," Dobbs said.)

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) - a civil rights organization that fights discrimination and monitors hate groups - ran an ad in the New York Times and USA Today calling for CNN to issue a correction on Dobbs' show. In its Open Letter to CNN the SPLC wrote: "The source for Dobbs' leprosy claim is the late Madeleine Cosman - an anti-immigration zealot who once publicly stated that 'most' Latino immigrant men 'molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys, and some in nuns'....Given that Mr. Dobbs refuses to retract his leprosy claim, we believe it is CNN's responsibility to do so. We suggest that the appropriate place for the correction is the same place where the falsehood was told: on Mr. Dobbs' show."

In response to Leonhardt's article - which Dobbs called a "personal scurrilous attack" - Dobbs said he wouldn't have used Cosman if he had known of her background. But last year, Daphne Eviatar reported in The Nation, "Dobbs often features and quotes activists with links to extremist and even openly racist groups.... Yet Dobbs consistently fails to mention those connections." Also, in "vilifying immigrants," Dobbs "searches high and low for statistics showing the negative impact of immigration on the US economy, and he conveniently leaves out contradictory information."

This pattern of ignoring the facts and engaging in inflammatory rhetoric not only poisons an important national debate on immigration - as SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a recent web chat- it also places Dobbs in what Eviatar described as "a long line of illustrious, and notorious, Americans who have played pivotal roles in the nation's periodic outbreaks of nativism...."

Leonhardt wrote, "The most common complaint about [Dobbs], at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing." But that's not the real problem, in my view. I have no problem with the mix of factual reporting and editorializing, interpretive journalism married to factual accuracy. (In fact, I think Dobbs has done a good job in this regard when it comes to issues like outsourcing, the minimum wage, and corporate welfare.) We do that every week in The Nation - along with investigative reporting, editorials, review essays, etc. And unlike CNN, which claims to be politically "neutral," we are politically engaged and open about our politics and values. We are also assiduous in our fact-checking - always believing that accuracy is a duty, not a luxury or simply a virtue. And we publish clarifications and corrections as needed.

But there are no signs that CNN is doing anything to set the record straight or address Dobbs' relationship to factual accuracy. Even CBS - which initially caught what Frank Rich described as "Lou Dobbs's hoax blaming immigrants for a nonexistent rise in leprosy"- has now hired him as a commentator for The Early Show. How far will Dobbs go in pushing his fact-challenged immigration agenda on this new outlet? And if he truly wants to serve his viewers by reporting on what he calls a "nonpartisan independent reality" then isn't it time he stop pulling the wool over folks' eyes?

Digg!

Tagged as: immigration, dobbs

Katrina vanden Heuvel has been The Nation's editor since 1995 and publisher since 2005.


Washington Post Editorial Board Peddles 'U.S. Knows Best' Position on Iraq
The Washington Post still doesn't believe Maliki, Iraqi officials.
Post by Steve Benen. July 23, 2008.
Looking Back: Rumsfeld Praised Mass Murderers Over PM Maliki
Apparently the Bush Administration not liking Maliki isn't a new thing.
Post by Jonathan Schwarz. July 23, 2008.
Mukasey Asks Congress to Legitimize the "War on Terror"
"This is nothing but a transparent attempt to get bipartisan buy in, before the election, to the Global War on Terror."
Post by Digby. July 23, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Partly true. He just chose the wrong disease. Immigrants, especially illegals bring MANY
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jun 7, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
virulent and dangerous diseases with them. In the past there were many examples of this (TB, fevers, syphillis, leperosy, etc) however it went away as sanitary conditions improved, Ellis Island (and other entry points) screened immigrants, and new medicines were developed, and native populations were, essentially, killed off by the diseases (they diseases burnt themselves out). Leperosy is not to be feared as it once was because we have drugs that successfully treat it, it is still very dangerous in countries where they don't have healthcare though. All these diseases from immigrants are on the upswing again across the world. Just a few of the nice things immigrants, especially illegal ones since they are NEVER screened/treated, bring are below. (HIV/Aids, TB, Malaria, YellowFever, types of Flu, etc, etc)
linked text

linked text

linked text

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THESE EARLY EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS REALLY CAUSED A PROBLEM
Posted by: bbfmail on Jun 7, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EUROPEAN DISEASE IN THE NEW WORLD

INTRODUCTION

Until the coming of the Europeans, the New World was free of smallpox, typhus, cholera, and measles--the focus of this article. When Cortez came to invade Mexico, he had with him a silent ally more potent than his small Spanish army. That insidious ally was infectious disease, to which Aztecs and other Native Americans had no immunity.

When he finally entered Tenochtitlan (Mexico City today) in 1520, the year after he first arrived in the New World, he found half of the inhabitants infected with smallpox. In just the first epidemic, nearly 50% had died. Eleven years later, a second epidemic devastated Mexico, and this too was introduced from Spanish ships. By 1595, over 18 million people had died of smallpox, mumps, measles and other European diseases. (For a further narrative, see Cartwright amongst the resources below.)

.....

II. SMALLPOX

This viral disease is relatively recent in human history and is believed to have come from cattle or possibly monkeys. It probably originated in the area around the Caspian Sea. It became epidemic throughout Europe following the Crusades, and was brought to the New World several times by explorers. Epidemic after epidemic swept Europe following the Crusades during the Middle Ages. It killed one third of the people and producing permanent pock marks in another third of its victims.

Smallpox is a classic epidemic disease that was sustainable only by large human populations.

* •This disease seems to have had origins in large domesticated herbivores and subsequently mutated to become an exclusively human disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Travel is restricted in many cases. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
CNN, the new Fox News!
Posted by: johngary66 on Jun 7, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Anderson Cooper wises up and gets out of there. The recent debates on CNN were badly marred by Wolf Blitzer. Not surprising with these blowhards. Dobbs is just plain a joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CNN, the new Fox News! Posted by: lessbread
Travel spreads disease.
Posted by: sethmo on Jun 8, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The recent case of Andrew Speaker, the lawyer from Atlanta who travelled to Europe after he was notified by the CDC not to travel, and who was diagnosed to have XDR TB, clearly illustrates this point. Immigration is a subset of travel.

Lou Dobbs is, without a doubt, misusing information to promote one of his pet causes - castigating undocumented aliens - but we need to be careful with our thought processes regarding the underlying issue - the spread of contagious diseases.

While there is some truth to the notion that some exposure in populations to disease renders a measure of baseline immunity that helps to protect that community it is also true that there are (emerging) diseases that kill so rapidly and thoroughly that the results of completely open borders, especially in the face of a worldwide pandemic would be disastrous.

The 1918 influenza pandemic is one such example. More recent examples are the SARS outbreak and the potential future spread of avian influenza. The 1918 flu outbreak, which the CDC calls the Mother of All Pandemics on their website, killed 50 million people worldwide with a mortality rate of ~2.5%. SARS has a mortality rate of ~20%. Highly pathogenic avian influenza (there are many degrees of pathogenicity in flu viruses) has an established mortality of ~90-100% within 48 hours.

In 1918 the outbreak was primarily spread through soldiers travelling by boat. SARS spread via travellers who flew and was contained largely through aggressive public health measures that included quarantining and grounding flights at airports. Thus far, massive public health efforts have managed to restrict avian flu to mostly the asian countries where it originated. In light of this, I think that advocating for completely open borders is irresponsible.

The issues of travel, immigration, border restrictions and disease control are all highly complex. They involve commerce, public health, population, basic economics and a host of other interests. So a dialogue on these issues that oversimplifies, or misinforms for partisan purposes can be very destructive to progress toward a solution to all of these problems. We can do our part by calling 'foul' (without using more inflammatory rhetoric of our own) whenever these kinds of tactics are used. Then we need to move the conversation on to the real issues that must be faced if we are to remain safe in our country and around the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]