Dobbs Makes His Case
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?