May 6, 2007
Lou Dobbs, "Advocacy" Journalist?
Lesley Stahl Interviews The Outspoken CNN Anchor On "60 Minutes"
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Dobbs On Illegal Immigrants
In this "60 Minutes" excerpt, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs tells Leslie Stahl that the U.S. could track down and deport millions of illegal immigrants if it makes the commitment to do so.
-
-
Photo
Lou Dobbs and his wife Debi, in the kitchen of their New Jersey farmhouse. (CBS)
-
Photo
Lou Dobbs. (CBS)
-
-
Interactive
Immigration And Naturalization
Who's coming to America? Find out what's being done to screen for terrorists and take a citizenship quiz.
-
Photo Essay
Immigration Rallies
Demonstrators demand path to citizenship for estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
-
News Tools
Immigration Reform Plan
President Bush lays out his vision for comprehensive immigration reform.
For over 20 years, as the host of "Moneyline" on CNN, Lou Dobbs all but created television business reporting. He was seen as a booster of capitalism, and of the corporate executives he covered.
But today, that mild-mannered friend of CEOs has morphed into an anti-business champion of the middle class – and a "Johnny One Note" on the evils of illegal immigration.
The more he rails, the more his audience grows; his ratings have nearly doubled in the last two years.
As correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, his supporters want him to run for president, his critics want CNN to fire him, and some in Congress just want him to be quiet.
If you’re looking for your traditional, detached, impartial news show, do not come knocking on Lou Dobbs' door. His show on CNN has become a nightly rage fest.
If you had to describe Dobbs today, you'd say he's a mad-as-hell anti-establishmentarian. But didn’t he used to be exactly the opposite?
When he was the popular anchor of CNN's "Moneyline" in the 1980s and 90s, he was one of the reasons CEOs became celebrities. But when the corporate corruption scandals broke in 2001, Dobbs says he felt betrayed and began attacking those CEOs for, their "greed" and for selling out American workers by outsourcing jobs overseas.
"Think about the words we don't hear any longer in this from corporate America: 'corporate citizenship,' 'empowerment of employees,' 'doing good for the community,'" Dobbs tells Stahl.
"This was a big, huge transformation," Stahl remarks. "It's like somebody invaded you."
"Well, I hope not," Dobbs says.
"Well, here's what they say about you: that you distort the figures, that you exaggerate and that you aim to inflame just to get ratings," Stahl says.
"Oh, really?" Dobbs replies. "That’s fascinating, because what I can't understand is why other journalists would not take on the issues of free trade, illegal immigration, outsourcing—all of these rather sexy topics … which I've been covering for years."
"Reporters don't 'take on' issues. Reporters 'report' issues, and there’s a big difference there," Stahl says. "Do you think you're a journalist?"
"Absolutely," Dobbs says. "I may be an advocacy journalist, but I'm a journalist."
One of the issues he tackles relentlessly is illegal immigration. And on that, his critics say, his advocacy can get in the way of the facts.
Following a report on illegal immigrants carrying diseases into the U.S., one of the correspondents on his show, Christine Romans, told Dobbs that there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in the past three years.
60 Minutes checked that and found a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, saying that 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three. The report also says that nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants.
"We went to try and check that number, 7,000. We can’t…," Stahl says.
"Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it’s a fact," Dobbs replies.
"You can’t tell me that. You did report it," Stahl says.
"I just did," Dobbs says.
"How can you guarantee that to me?" Stahl asks.
Says Dobbs, "Because I'm the managing editor. And that’s the way we do business. We don’t make up numbers, Lesley."
"That’s a strange attitude for a reporter to have, 'I don't need anymore facts. I know what the truth is,'" says Mark Potok, who monitors hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Potok charges that Dobbs is a fear monger. "The impression you get, pretty strongly I think, day after day, is that sort of all 11 million illegal aliens are bringing leprosy, they’re bringing crime, they’re bringing all these terrible things to the United States," he explains.
"If these people have come into this country illegally, what is so wrong with somebody taking it up as an advocate?" Stahl asks.
"But that does not sort of give one the go-ahead to say that, you know, 'These are a group of rapists and disease-carrying people who are coming to, you know, essentially destroy the culture of this country.' You know, I think that’s a long leap," Potok says.
Produced By Denise Cetta
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left
Scroll Right
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 7
- next
See all 303 CommentsNo, a reporter should be disqualified when he has shown a willful desire to misinform his viewers as he did during the Pelosi plane kerfuffle. Lou Dobbs reported that Nancy Pelosi %u201Cwants the U.S. Air Force for personal accommodation.%u201D and "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently wants regular access to military aircraft for flights, not only for herself, but also members of her family and the Californian delegation.", during a week in which he focused on this made up story. The House Sergeant of Arms had confirmed that he was the one who asked the Pentagon for a larger plane for Pelosi on tuesday of that week, yet Lou Dobbs never mentioned it and continued to misinform his viewers for the remainder of the week. To this date, Dobbs has not offered a retraction. I used to respect Dobbs even though I often disagreed w/ him, I no longer do.
I don't always agree with the direction they go in but I'm glad they actually do and at least try to be some what object. With Dobbs it's clear what his opinion is and what is fact. One shouldn't take his word as 100%, look at other points of view other then his. He at least is willing to bring certain issues into the light.
I have to ask though. What is wrong with putting America and it's legal citizens first in all things? What is wrong with actually upholding actual laws and making people follow them?
I think Mr. Dobbs is attempting to wake the large segment of our population that feel illegal aliens are a detriment to society as we know it now. The majority of people are not happy with President Bush and his approach to the illegal alien problem but cannot for what ever reason bring them self to speak out about this growing cancer that will someday destroy this country.
Journalist, that%u2019s a very subjective title that is used by both good and bad reporters. I personally hear, read and watch very poor journalists almost every day. Mr. Dobbs reports on important issues and his views are closely inline with my views which makes him to me a very reliable source.
Perhaps if we had more journalists willing to go public with their own views on illegal aliens, the war in Iraq, and many other issues than we the target of their programs could decide for ourselves if that person was a journalist. We could tune in or out and even write letters to the programming department to make a helpful suggesting about how to improve the journalist.
C. Mealer
Alexandria, LA.
I think Mr. Dobbs is attempting to wake the large segment of our population that feel illegal aliens are a detriment to society as we know it now. The majority of people are not happy with President Bush and his approach to the illegal alien problem but cannot for what ever reason bring them self to speak out about this growing cancer that will someday destroy this country.
Journalist, that%u2019s a very subjective title that is used by both good and bad reporters. I personally hear, read and watch very poor journalists almost every day. Mr. Dobbs reports on important issues and his views are closely inline with my views which makes him to me a very reliable source.
Perhaps if we had more journalists willing to go public with their own views on illegal aliens, the war in Iraq, and many other issues than we the target of their programs could decide for ourselves if that person was a journalist. We could tune in or out and even write letters to the programming department to make a helpful suggesting about how to improve the journalist.
C. Mealer
Alexandria, LA.
Posted by gatogus at 03:29 PM : May 03, 2007
AMEN and WELL SAID...what a loser...
Posted by gatogus at 03:29 PM : May 03, 2007
AMEN and WELL SAID...what a loser...
Posted by gatogus at 03:29 PM : May 03, 2007
AMEN and WELL SAID...what a loser...
Posted by gatogus at 03:29 PM : May 03, 2007
AMEN and WELL SAID...what a loser...
I've never watched Lou Dobbs but there are a few things you should know before you call someone an idiot:
tectics = tactics
intloreant = intolerant
missinformed= misinformed
He gives himself away as a closet fascist when he states "you bet" the USA can round up and deport millions of fpeople.
Papers Pleeeece!
War on terrorism.
War on drugs.
...chill out, government.
War on racism.
War on poverty and homelessness.
War on ignorance and ethnocentrism.
Just as difficult of a plan, but the U.S. would be a better place if victorious on those fronts.
The National Research Council (NRC) estimated that immigrant households create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of $20.2 billion annually.
The NRC estimated that an immigrant without a high school diploma will create a net lifetime burden of $89,000, an immigrant with only a high school education it is negative $31,000. However, an immigrant with education beyond high school is a fiscal benefit of $105,000.
Estimating the impact of immigrants and their descendants, the NRC found that if today%u2019s newcomers do as well as past generations, the average immigrant will be a fiscal drain for his first 22 years after arrival. It takes his children another 18 years to pay back this burden.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that in 2002 illegal alien households imposed costs of $26 billion on the federal government and paid $16 billion in federal taxes, creating an annual net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion at the federal level, or $2,700 per household.
Among the largest costs, were Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison/court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, CIS estimates the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700, per household.
The primary reason illegal aliens create a fiscal deficit is that an estimated 60 percent lack a high school degree and another 20 percent have no education beyond high school. The fiscal drain is not due to their legal status or unwillingness to work.
The 18 March 2007 Los Angeles Times reported that California hospitals spent about $700 million on healthcare for illegal immigrants in 2006 and received $73 million from the federal program.
Because illegal immigrants tend to be disproportionately concentrated in certain segments of the nation%u2019s labor market, their direct impact is quite specific. The 2000 Census reported that 58 percent of the adult foreign-born population had only a high school diploma or less. Undoubtedly the educational attainment level of illegal immigrants is even worse than this bleak Census finding that is the product of our entire immigration system. Consequently, there is no doubt that most illegal immigrants are poorly educated, unskilled and often do not speak English. Of necessity, therefore, they seek employment in the low skilled occupations in a variety of industries. In the process, they artificially swell the labor supply in those occupations and industries and depress the wages of the low skilled American workers who also work in these sectors.
If permitted to compete for these jobs with American workers, the illegal immigrants will always win. This is because they will do anything to get the jobs -- accept lower than prevailing wages; work longer hours; work under dangerous and hazardous working conditions; and live in crowded and sub-standard housing. They will accept conditions as they are and are less likely to report violations of prevailing laws pertaining to work standards, anti-discrimination and sexual harassment -- even if they know these laws exist (which many do not). No American worker can successfully compete against them -- nor should they --when the rules of the game are who will work the hardest, for the longest, and under the worst conditions.
As a consequence, the illegal immigrant worker becomes the preferred worker for employers. It is not that American workers will not do certain jobs; it is that they will not do the jobs under the same terms that illegal immigrants often will -- nor should they. As for the illegal immigrants, they willingly work under these adverse conditions, because their orbit of comparison is with the conditions of work in their homelands. Literally, it does not matter how bad the working conditions are in the United States as they are invariably far better than they were where they come from.
Corporations, both large and small, have implicitly encouraged illegal immigration as evidenced by the lobbying campaigns of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the large agriculture businesses. These campaigns at first focused on the non-enforcement of the immigration laws. More recently, the lobbying has been aimed at the legalization of these workers under the guise of immigration reform. Obviously, the single-minded motivation of these corporations is the increased profits obtained from lower wage, nonunion workers.
In addition to ethnic special interest groups such as La Raza, the Democratic and Republican parties have also sought to harness and utilize the potential political power of the illegal aliens by virtue of their legalization. This potential is by no means insignificant since there are an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. Pure and simple, the aim here is political power and nothing less.
I do not fault the illegal immigrants for coming to the United States in search of a better way of life. Indeed, I am certain that many of us would do the same if we could not adequately provide for our families. However, I oppose any form of so-called immigration reform that involves any form of amnesty for two primary reasons:
First, there cannot be a reward for those who have broken the law in order to enter this country. If we do otherwise, then we will repeat the mistakes of the 1986 legislation with its amnesty provisions that only encouraged an even greater wave of illegal immigration in subsequent years. In addition, if we are to remain a nation of laws, then we must respect the rights of those who have been attempting to legally immigrate, some waiting as long as ten years for just such a right.
Second, I strongly oppose any form of immigration reform that effectively causes the tax payers to subsidize the profits of those corporations that employ these low-wage immigrants. As provided in the quoted congressional testimony, a majority of the illegal immigrants that are currently here impose a major liability on the federal government, a liability that will significantly increase if they are legalized through some form of amnesty. This liability amounts to a government subsidy for those corporations.
Some argue that we have no choice but to offer some form of amnesty because it is impractical do anything else. In contrast, I believe that the only lasting solution must be predicated on severe penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens.
The true magnet that drives illegal immigration is jobs. If there are no jobs to be had for those who are illegal, then America will cease to be an attraction for illegal immigrants. This can be accomplished by imposing severe penalties on all who employ illegal immigrants. The employer penalties will also provide the necessary impetus for those illegal workers who are already here to voluntarily ask for deportation back to their home countries because there will be no jobs to sustain them.
People talk about unintended consequences. And Lou Dobbs isn't a politician! He works for a company! Now I can see politicians messing things up.. and getting mad at them. But not teevee companies! Thats unacceptable to me.
There is no mandate with a journalist for unintended consequences. And this is even more so with Iraq! I mean, it is a literal all out attack! On something, yer talking about thousands and thousands of people who do this stuff for a living! Who look at the intelligence.. Who analyze it. And have been analyzing it for years and years! And then all of a sudden.. Because some camera man wants to make policy.. Iraq is this big, liberal legal lobby, right wing extremist conspiracy! That Pear farmer should sue CNN!
I'm the amnesty. And if you work in this country? In my opinion. You should be a citizen of this country. You're not talking about no "burden on society" when you're talking about workers. There's no burden on society for people who work. Thats the whole point of working! You're not a burden on society. Unbelievable..
This is unacceptable, cable news. You've become one big giant Washington tabloid.
So why is nothing being done?
I've seen a rather interesting increase in Spanish-only-speaking people lately; it is not immoral or illegal to ask somebody who seems foreign for relevant paperwork. When I visited Europe some 20 years ago, I had to have my passport on me for identification. So there is NOTHING wrong with America doing the same thing!
Who's supposed to look out and report these things? It's very odd to see a large landscaping company truck drive to "Old People Buffet" restaurant (name changed to protect the innocent) and to see the white guy unlock and lift up the door on back of the truck, to see three brown skinned people who have that "basic Latino look" get out of it. Prove to me that guy wasn't using illegal workers. The front cab of the truck could have housed all 3 passengers. Yet all three were treated like tools housed as cargo! You bet something's not right. And nobody on the news told me I'm supposed to call 1-800-ILLEGALS.
Pity I don't remember the truck's information. Next time I see something, I'll bring along my camera; take some pictures. Trouble is, who'd get dealt with? The 3 illegals? The driver? The company that's hired all of them?
It'd be nice TO know what to do at times like this because I'd do what I can as a loyal American.
This isn't being anti-Hispanic. If a Mexican, Canadian, white male American, you bloody well name it, went to another country illegally, you'd be dealt with.
N.B. There were 54 Americans killed in the LA Riots in 1992.
They were average Americans, on the way home dragged from their cars, car windows smashed with crow bars as the TV crews hovered above, recording - then killed with crowbars, knives or guns. Some had their heads bashed in, as their children watched. Some were killed protecting their homes from rapists and thugs. Even on the liberal West Side.
The PC LA Times have erased that part of history from their search engines, as I guess does not fit their story line. You can not find even their names. Those issues have been blocked out of the data base.
Just l ast week the 15 year update was published, but did not mention these people, rather it was a story about how economically deprived the people of LA continue to be in some ethnic groups, and that "nothing has changed." Again Whitee guilt is the story line most comfortable to publish.
QUESTION TO ALL MEDIA---
Is there a rememberance to these poor 54 ? Or a memorial ? Or a CNN retrospective on their lives and how the familes have coped since this massacre ? No way. Why not ?
This is why I and many of you , do not trust the mass media press. Erasing their names , erasing history ... Shame on you.
Play by the rule of law? Who eggzactly has been play'n by the rule of law? Huh? George Bush? Bill Clinton? Oh I know.. Tom Delay! Nope..
Who?
Is Fox News fair and unbiased in their reporting?
I don't always agree with Mr. Dobbs, but I'm glad he has enough integrity to lay it on the table as he sees it.
I firmly believe that journalists who report on politics and international news have been biased in what they want the public at large to believe.
Mr. Dobbs: please keep on speaking your mind and thank you.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 7
- next
See all 303 Comments