Dobbs Makes His Case
(CBS)
Seeing as Stahl had just spent part of the segment questioning Dobbs' journalistic credentials, it was a startling admission, at least for those who haven't been following Dobbs' arrival at CBS News. But it was also a necessary one, and "60 Minutes" clearly did the right thing by disclosing the CNN host's connections to CBS News.
In the piece, Dobbs calls himself an "advocacy journalist," a concept Stahl presses him on. Here's that portion of the transcript:
STAHL: I'm sitting here saying to myself, `This man runs a news show?'I'm hesitant to just dash off a couple lines about this – the debate over what makes a "journalist" is about as old as journalism itelf, and its an issue that deserves a more thorough treatment than I can give it here. But I wanted to post this and see if anyone wanted to weigh in on Dobbs definition of journalism, which one might also apply to people like Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and even jailed blogger Josh Wolf.
Mr. DOBBS: Hmm. I do.
STAHL: And you can just tell me you don't like the president. Whoo.
Mr. DOBBS: I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from.
STAHL: What about fair and balanced?
Mr. DOBBS: I've never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I found it to be...
STAHL: But that's--but wait, what's the definition of "journalism?" That that's in there.
Mr. DOBBS: I...
STAHL: That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced.
Mr. DOBBS: I truly believe there's a nonpartisian, independent reality. But more of the same...
STAHL: But it's your reality.
Mr. DOBBS: It is my reality.
STAHL: But it's not the reality.
Mr. DOBBS: Well, how so?
(Footage of Dobbs)
STAHL: (Voiceover) Dobbs scoffs at suggestions that his advocacy tarnishes his credentials as a journalist.
Mr. DOBBS: The idea that a reporter should be disqualified because he or she actually cares, actually isn't neutral about the well-being of the country and its people, that's absurd.
The question, I think, is this: Should journalists try to overcome their natural biases and present some semblance of an objective reality? Or are they better off embracing those biases and bringing their own reality, as Dobbs does, to their audience?
It's not hard to reach a consensus on reality on most news stories. When there is no consensus, someone has to report what the competing versions of reality are so the public can weigh its options.
Having said that, I think the answer is more complicated and depends on the journalist, the story, the place and the audience.
Of course advocacy journalism isn't particularly new. Coming from a small newspaper background, I know that reporters and editors in small towns routinely report the news and then editorialize about it -- many times because the reporter and editor are the same person. It can be done successfully, reporting both sides for the news story and saving opinions for the editorial.
Does this confuse the less-savvy readers who don't distinguish between opinion and news? Definitely. Should that stop the newspapers from doing this? I don't think so.
There is room for Lou Dobbs' kind of journalism, but it isn't warranted for every news story, and I don't see why reporters who excel in presenting all sides of a story in the traditional objective manner should change the way they do business.
A journalist reports the Iraq they see, not the good and bad in equal measure.
A journalist tells the story as they see it rather than reflexively splitting the baby or poxing both houses.
A journalist recognizes even the center does not hold a monopoly on truth.
A journalist does not find the facts to support their POV. They form their POV from the facts they find.
A journalist does not mistake protecting sources with protecting their storylines.
A journalist reports the facts, even if the facts are liberal.
I say Bravo Lou and keep up the good work. America needs a truth teller, especially in this day and age of Government lies.
I do think dobbs has touched a raw POWERFUL not fully tapped nerve in the electorate -- and it shows that deeper unresolved problems are brewing related first and foremost to the devolving economic plight of american workers.
What do americans historically do when feeling stressed out and insecure economically? Instead of targeting the true source of the problem -- the rich and powerful, the greedy power holders, decision makers & their flunkies in congress -- the 10% of the elite who control 90% of this country's resources -- WHO CONTROL & PILLAGE THE ECONOMY'S WEALTH created by workers -- amerikkkans LASH OUT at easy scapegoats: Chinese, Native Americans, Latinos. It has been this way since the 1800s.
Americans suffer from both being bullied and being bullies. With superficial capacity for self examiniation and deep reflection.
Those who have been abused know how to abuse -- they rarely develop any consciousness about it.
Lou is on to something Potent/meaningful, but he suffers from a lot of fuzzy thinking and short-sighted AHISTORICAL analysis.
The VIOLENT CRIMINAL LAW BREAKING immigrants SHOULD BE THE TARGETED PRIORITY TO REMOVE in conjunction with the BUSINESSES & those powerful greedy SOBs who benefit from American wages being suppressed by a desperate work force.
Is he a journalist? I don't know, but he has led me to think over the last two years or so about journalistic objectivity. At times I wonder if the commitment to fairness and balance is moral.
Bad news helps ensure job security for journalists, but at the same time journalists have the skills and aptitudes to spark positive change -- something that Dobbs in his delusional state allegedly is trying to do.
Objectivity, in my view, renders many journalists impotent to promote much needed action to correct wrongs and ameliorate imperfect situations. Allowing bad to occur without attempting to counteract it is immoral.
While I cannot stand Mr. Dobbs, I'll concede that his apparent desire to defend the middle class has some moral aspects. He doesn't allow the false notion that the truth is always fair or balanced to impede "insightful" analysis.
Although his desires even as a purported journalist don't irk me, but he only offers bellyaching sans empowerment. If he truly cares about his pet causes, he would actively educate people who lack clout, time, and spare income about how they can improve their own plight.
Dobbs merely riles people up without giving them any way to harness such passion He is all bark -- more like pout -- and no bite. Advocacy -- journalistic or not -- does little if people whinge and not act.
George W. Bush created this agreement between Canada and Mexico%u2019s right wing presidents. The GOP and the Bush administration are at odds over imigration. The Republics don%u2019t want a continued influx of non-anglo cultured immigrants in the US but, do want to downgrade the American middle working class into a majority (85%) slave class of workers.
The agreement, or merger of the 3 North American Countries will see the construction of the super highway from Lubbock Texas through Canada. This highway will be a toll road (as all others will be in America) using non-union truck drivers to transport freight from non-union Chinese producers from non-union ports in Mexico.
The United States, or %u201CThe United North America%u201D will see the end of the American Middle Class and the Constitution as we know it, giving way to a Corporate Ruling Class dictated by the top 2%.
Bon Chance
Buenos Suerte
And, Good Luck to us all%u2026.
"Where is fairness? Where is balance?" they write in the book's introduction. "After synthesizing what we learned, it became clear that a number of familiar and even useful ideas -- including fairness and balance -- are too vague to rise to the level of essential elements of the profession.%u201D
Of course merely expressing opinions on a variety of topics isn't journalism -- so maybe Bill O'Reilly is a maybe. And avoiding inconvenient information in pursuit of a story isn't journalism either -- so maybe Josh Wolf's interview with Kevin Sites is compelling evidence Wolf isn't either. Olbermann is an unapologetic liberal -- disclosure isn't a bad thing, is it? -- but Bob Schieffer has been doing commentary on Sunday morning for much longer than Keith and nobody (quite correctly) questions his credentials. Charges of editorial bias are often slung by people seeking cover to promote their own agendas. In these effort, "fairness" and "balance" have become synomyms for "accurate."
But they are not. Accuracy -- going wherever the story takes you -- is the paramount rule of good journalism. But insisting on a "fair and balanced" litmus is too often intended to dilute, not illuminate.
~~~
www.planetabell.com: reflections on politics+media
Lou Dobbs is my hero ! He represents my feelings about ILLEGAL immigration and the feelings of almost everyone I know ! I too
wish he would run for PRESIDENT !
-
by marsha561
May 8, 2007 6:29 PM PDT
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 13 CommentsLou Dobbs is my hero ! He represents my feelings about ILLEGAL immigration and the feelings of almost everyone I know ! I too
wish he would run for PRESIDENT !