COMMENTS: 45
Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.
While it is not clear what specific straw broke the back of Lou Dobbs, leading him to terminate his contract with CNN, his departure is a great step toward restoring journalistic integrity to CNN's brand and bringing civility and truth back to the immigration debate. For those of us who bore the brunt of Dobbs’s distorted reality, this moment has been long overdue.
CNN President Jon Klein said of the decision that "Lou has now decided to carry the banner of ‘advocacy journalism’ elsewhere." The truth is, such an approach to covering the issues never belonged at CNN in the first place. Despite Dobbs’s history with the station, his shift over the past decade toward so-called "advocacy journalism" was a shift away from the integrity of the CNN news brand. Journalists cover advocates; they don't join them.
My problems with Dobbs surfaced more than two years ago, during the debate over the last version of immigration reform. The rhetoric that Lou and other extreme commentators used surrounding the debate took a harsh turn, so much so that a member of my staff called it a "wave of hate" and said that "this no longer sounds like it's about policy—it sounds like it's about us."
This is not just an exercise in etiquette. The Latino community knows all too well the effect of extreme and polarizing rhetoric. Over the past five years, the vitriolic debate surrounding immigration has created a toxic climate for our communities. During that time, we have seen a double-digit increase in the number of hate crimes against Latinos and substantial growth in the number of hate groups targeting Latinos. As was brutally demonstrated last year by the murders of Marcelo Lucero and Jose Sucuzhanay, lives are literally at stake.
I appeared on Lou's show to ask him to tone down the rhetoric, pointing out that, given the stature of CNN and the reach of his show, violence was a potential outcome of his words. Dobbs went on the offensive, demanding that I "show him" examples of hate on his show. So I did.
For the past two years, we at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) have documented a litany of issues with Dobbs’s tactics, including 1) his regular use of guests representing hate groups, vigilantes, and nativists as commentators on immigration; 2) his relentless repetition of stories on immigrants and crime, projecting an impression of extreme threat to American communities—an impression far from reality; and 3) his inaccurate and pejorative characterization of immigrants as carriers of disease.
Yet Dobbs is not alone in purveying extreme rhetoric on the subject of immigration. There are dozens of others on cable television news and radio who draw our ire. Given the free speech issues that we regularly defend, we have attempted to approach this issue with restraint. We have appealed to the journalistic integrity of the cable networks and requested balance. We have worked with advertisers who have a right to ensure that their brands are not associated with such polarizing debate. And we have used the airwaves to identify patterns of distortion and established a website (www.WeCanStopTheHate.org) to call out the worst offenders so that the public can add its voice to the debate.
Most recently, we joined the Drop Dobbs campaign after Dobbs appeared at a rally hosted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. As a private citizen, Dobbs has every right to speak at whatever event he pleases. However, as a representative of CNN's "best political news team in America," Dobbs provided FAIR with the legitimacy of the CNN brand by appearing at that rally.
While the resignation of Lou Dobbs from CNN is an important step in restoring greater fairness, accuracy, and balance to CNN and cable news, it is our hope that it begins to undo the climate of intolerance fostered by his show.
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RustyOldCar on Nov 21, 2009 1:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, if we are at the point where we can classify someone as part of a "hate group," write them off, and try to ruin their career because we don't agree with them; we may be treading into some dangerous territory of intolerance...with La Raza leading the way.
Lou Dobbs did invite opposing views. He even had this author on his show.
And the one question he kept asking that no one seems to want to answer is -- illegal immigration is illegal, it damages the rule of law to have widespread illegal immigration and not enforce the law. And that is not racist or hateful, and it doesn't matter if the illegal immigrants are Mexican, or Polish, or German, Irish, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.
They violate the law by being in this country illegally and, hence, diminish the value of the legal order.
What a twist it would be for La Raza to stand up for the rule of law and ask those who are here illegally to go home and then follow the law if they want to come and stay in this country. That is not hateful. It is the right thing to do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pointing to the illegality of illegal immigration harms the rule of law...
Posted by: leafsong2
» Dobbs NOT part of Corporatocracy; AGAINST BAILOUT, ISPOPULIST
Posted by: plantland
» RE: Is La Raza setting a dangerous precedent?
Posted by: Haji54
» You are right regarding the "illegal" facit, BUT, Lou's "experts"
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Is La Raza setting a dangerous precedent?
Posted by: VictoriaSethunya
» RE: Is La Raza setting a dangerous precedent?
Posted by: cwilsondrum
Comments are closed-
Posted by: November2010 on Nov 21, 2009 2:00 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No nation in the world is expected to have open borders. Supporting that is treason. And spare me your comparisons to the Pilgrims who killed all the Native Americans. That's the scariest analogy ever. Are you suggesting that Mexicans want to commit genocide against white Americans?
Now, go ahead and delete me you hypocritical, pro-censorship cowards!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're right about "La Raza." It is a racist term.
Posted by: leafsong2
» RE: Go back to Mexico!
Posted by: Haji54
» Well, California WAS originally part of Mexico. Is it okay for them to go "back" there?
Posted by: Beck
» It WAS part of Mexico, for about 20 years in the early 19th century. But we kicked their ass.
Posted by: November2010
» Yes, You Are Sooo Special!
Posted by: armorypk
» the Vietnamese are super-special
Posted by: November2010
» RE: It WAS part of Mexico, for about 20 years in the early 19th century. But we kicked their ass.
Posted by: leafsong2
» Who the fuck wants to move to Mexico?
Posted by: November2010
» California was Spanish land grants, a handful of Spaniards and virtually all Indian...
Posted by: Prinzowhales
» Lou Dobbs hates Mexicans so much, he married one.
Posted by: November2010
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cedarriver on Nov 21, 2009 5:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're all a bunch of fools. You have something personal to gain in the exploitation of illegal aliens. Is it cash?
Let them become citizens, pay the same taxes as me, earn the same wages...or simply get the hell out.
You people scare me as you hide behind some do-gooder image as the Mexicans are abused for profit. Go to hell. Go straight to hell. Do not pass Go.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: once again alternet is a source for fools
Posted by: grkjr
» RE: once again alternet is a source for fools
Posted by: cedarriver
» RE: once again alternet is a source for fools
Posted by: grkjr
» RE: once again alternet is a source for fools
Posted by: cedarriver
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 21, 2009 5:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a bit different from many of the essays that Alternet published that use terms such as “hatemonger” repeatedly to describe Dobbs, or use “right ring fanatic” or “gun-totin fantatic” to describe the positions of others.
In general I say a number of the essays published on Alternet use emotionally loaded language to advocate a position and deride an opposing view. This sort of mode of presenting a view has consequences as you can see from reviewing the sorts of comments that are posted.
I know from reading Alternet for some time now that it’s not uncommon for people who post responses to articles opposing massive illegal migrations to receive replies calling them “racist” “Puritans” “ toothless old white farts” “trailer trash”…a regular litany of offensive names. I believe his Mexican wife was referred to as a “cocoanut”. Not only is this sort of name calling not uncommon but rather it is the general mode of response. It shocked me at first but then I realized there is a lot of hate and intensity among some people who are pushing the open border agenda.
“La Raza” means “The Race” so I assume if you oppose its goals you are by definition opposing a “race.”
It contains its own myths.
Dobb’s was opinionated. I disliked a bit how he conducted some of his mini-discussions on various topics. He interrupted his panel members a bit more than I would have liked. It’s the medium that requires short discussions and the requirement to cover a number of topics in short time segments. Dobbs offset that with focusing on a set of issues and covering news related to those. You are correct in saying that he covered the topics related to illegal migration more than other newscasters and he clearly opposed the implicit open border policy. Most Americans of various enthic backgrounds do. That was why he was popular, because he actually voiced opinions that a large portion of the population agreed with.
The majority of citizens still oppose open borders and amnesty.
What is a “nativist”? The United States is the most ethnically diverse country on the planet so I assume by nativist you mean a citizen that has the view that the country restrict immigration so that its own citizens are not disadvantaged.
Dobbs addressed a number of issues citizens care about besides illegal migration. These includes the systematic export of jobs and the unreasonable influence of corporations, special interests groups, and lobbyist in promoting political agendas that are contrary to the interests of the majority of citizens. Those positions have also been deleted from public discussion.
As it is people are abandoning newspapers and TV as sources of news because they no longer view them as sources of information.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YANIRA06_66 on Nov 21, 2009 5:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 21, 2009 7:56 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.utpa.edu/orgs/MEChA/aztlan.html
The title quote is from MECha--'For the Race everything, for others nothing.' Talk to us about Dobbs racism--and that of his wife, undoubtedly and absurdly--when you and the other apologists for criminals and racists finish dousing us with nonsense.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» AZTLAN SEEMS THE POETIC OUTPOURING OF YOUTH EMBRACING IDENTITY
Posted by: plantland
» If we always did the opposite of what academics suggest...
Posted by: Prinzowhales
Comments are closed-
Posted by: svetistephen on Nov 21, 2009 9:09 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Don't they get funding from the tax exempt foundations...
Posted by: Prinzowhales
» RE: Don't they get funding from the tax exempt foundations...
Posted by: svetistephen
» here here
Posted by: Juven
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnstra on Nov 21, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 21, 2009 11:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In that they are much like our representatives in Congress. They know best how to manage the "ignorant masses".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 21, 2009 7:33 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Old Skeptic on Nov 22, 2009 12:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bereaved Mother on Nov 22, 2009 6:37 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rosa Alicea
Deltona Florida
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Some comments incite hatred, fear
Posted by: lclark
» RE: Some comments incite hatred, fear
Posted by: Bereaved Mother
» RE: Some comments incite hatred, fear
Posted by: lclark
» I wish we could examine killer's hard drive for hate sites
Posted by: plantland
» RE: I wish we could examine killer's hard drive for hate sites
Posted by: Bereaved Mother
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 22, 2009 7:44 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is essential the author recognize that much of the vitrol came from his own side -- folks who repeatedly and intentionally mischaracterized those against illegal immigration as "anti-immigration" at best and often slapping labels of racism, bigotry and "hate groups" onto them. If there was a protester out there who threatened the life of a latino, everyone opposed to illegal immigration were threatening lives. If someone used racist talk in their statements, everone was racist and was allied with that individual.
Some of the worst journalism I've ever seen followed in the wake of this immigration debate; it was customary for reporters to default to "anti-immigration" as the stance for anyone speaking out against illegal immigration.
It's a shame, really, because many of us would have stood side-by-side with our progressive opponents in denouncing the true anti-immigrants, that fringe right wing that definitely exists. But we were never given that chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Old Skeptic on Nov 23, 2009 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/
opinion/l23leprosy.html?ref=opinion
You may have to cut and paste the URL.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melloe2 on Nov 23, 2009 8:27 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Lou for being one of the few to stay on track. Sorry the folks who would destroy this nation won this round.
The author is the opinion they have, but I am disgusted to see it aired here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship
The FBI Could Be Watching You on Facebook
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?




