Just about a year to the day that he left CNN, Lou Dobbs is returning to cable news, this time as host of his own show on News Corp.'s Fox Business Network.
Fox Business Network is expected to announce that it has signed Dobbs as early as Wednesday afternoon. It's the latest high-profile hire for the cable network, which launched a little over three years ago and is in 57 million homes. Although that is far fewer homes than its chief rival, CNBC, Fox Business last week managed to beat CNBC on election night, both in viewers and the key adults 25-54 demographic.
Dobbs left CNN after repeatedly embarrassing the network by dabbling in absurd conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate. Dobbs also caused friction at the network due to his years-long, falsehood ridden crusade against illegal immigration. So, Dobbs is heading to Fox, where they apparently aren't bothered by such things. (He has already been popping up on Fox News in recent months to misinform their viewers about immigration.)
Dobbs' hiring might not be welcomed by everyone at Fox News. Fox News host Geraldo Rivera has repeatedly criticized Dobbs for his "slander" against Hispanics. He has also publicly spoken against Fox News hiring Dobbs. Dobbs, in turn, has called Rivera a "cowardly liar" and "annoying." Following Dobbs' departure from CNN, Fox Business anchor Liz Claman wrote on Twitter, "Was with Geraldo and his wife Erica last night when news of Lou Dobbs quitting CNN hit. Clearly Geraldo won that battle."
On Glenn Beck's radio program in October 2009, Fox Business host John Stossel said of conservative rhetoric on immigration: "If it means the Lou Dobbs-kind of rants about immigrants wrecking America, I don't subscribe to that. I think immigrants by and large do good things for America." Dobbs, in turn, has lashed out at Stossel.
Of course, Dobbs is not the first host to find a comfortable home on Fox Business after leaving their previous place of employment under controversial circumstances. After MSNBC fired Don Imus for his comments about the Rutgers Womens' Basketball team, Fox Business brought him on board.
Back in June, during one of his routine "I'm always right" proclamations, Glenn Beck announced that if he "get[s] out of control and start[s] leveling baseless charges that can't be backed up," then he would be "fired." As we pointed out, Beck hurls "baseless charges" for a living and regularly refuses to engage in substantive discussion of criticism of his work.
While this could be written after pretty much every episode of Beck's Fox News program, it bears repeating: By his own standards, Glenn Beck deserves to be fired after last night's program.
Last night, Beck endeavored to profile "puppet master" George Soros, the philanthropist who Beck claims controls the media, the global economy, and the political process. However, working backward from that absurd thesis caused Beck and his research staff predictable trouble. Namely, Beck's show relied on blatant falsehoods, mangled quotes, and distorted history.
While there are far too many "baseless charges" from last night's program to recap here, it's worth focusing on how Beck's attempts to buttress his assertion that Soros is some kind of creepy "puppet master" defy logic (and often the laws of space and time).
Proving once again that Fox's boosterism of GOP candidates doesn't stop after helping to get them elected, yesterday Fox Business host and Fox economic analyst Stuart Varney interviewed congresswoman-elect Kristi Noem (SD) during his guest-hosting stint on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show. (Though I use the term "interviewed" loosely.)
"Business journalist" Varney asked her a series of softball questions, ranging from how she feels about Michael Bloomberg's criticism of the Tea Party -- which he described as coming from "the elites of New York City" - to reports that she will be tapped for a leadership position in the new GOP House.
Near the end of the interview, Varney became so enamored with Noem's answers to his "pointed" questions that he praised her "sheer diplomacy," told her she was "doing a great job," and asked if she was "enjoying" the interview. Watch:
As we've seen, when a news network employs both politicians considering running for office and analysts expected to give their honest political assessments, things can get messy. A split is emerging in Fox News between people who think Fox contributor Sarah Palin is qualified to run for president, and those who don't.
Fox contributor Karl Rove recently indicated that he did not feel Palin has the "gravitas" necessary for the presidency. Palin responded by questioning why Rove feels "so threatened and so paranoid." Apparently Rove has some company among Fox employees.
As reported by Politico's Keach Hagey, Fox contributor Mort Kondracke thinks Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin "are responsible for the fact that the Senate did not go Republican" due to their support of candidates Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, and Joe Miller. Discussing whether Palin could be the GOP nominee in 2012, Kondracke said that she is "a joke even within her own party" and "the idea that she would be the presidential nominee is unthinkable."
Kondracke has previously had harsh words for Palin, saying during an appearance on Fox News' Special Report in 2008 that she is "utterly unqualified to be President. She is the Dan Quayle of - she's worse than Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle at least had served as a senator and was, you know, and was conversant with national issues."
Here's the video of Kondracke's comments:
Fox News has recently received a healthy dose of criticism over the fact that they employ no less than five potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates. As we've documented, from the beginning of the year through September 18, the various Fox candidates spoke through Fox News in at least 269 appearances on the network.
And as we noted yesterday, the Fox candidates are open about reaping the benefits that come with a platform on the network. Likely presidential candidate and Fox contributor Rick Santorum told National Review last month that his role on Fox has "been big" and "helped folks remember who I am."
While much of the criticism has come from observers appalled at the lack of journalistic ethics inherent in a news network essentially paying political candidates while giving them a platform to address Republican voters, the network has also been targeted by the campaigns of non-Fox candidates considering presidential runs.
In September, Politico's Jonathan Martin and Keach Hagey reported that "officials with some of the other campaigns in waiting are plainly annoyed at the advantage they see the four potential GOP candidates have with Fox." They also quoted an anonymous aide - anonymous because "no one wants to offend a news outlet with a potentially outsize role in determining the next GOP nominee" - saying that "I wish we could get that much airtime, but, oh yeah, we don't get a paycheck."
So, now that the midterms are over and the media's attention inevitably turns to the GOP primary, how is Fox going to handle these complaints? By severing ties to its employees that double as putative presidential candidates, perhaps? No, that would be vaguely ethical.
Continuing in the long tradition of prominent conservatives admitting that Fox News is just the house organ of the GOP, this morning former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told Fox host Neil Cavuto that Republicans are better-equipped to "fight" because they now "have Fox News" to "get a message out."
While Santorum's admission is noteworthy in its own right, it takes on added significance due to fact that Santorum -- along with at least four of his fellow Fox employees -- is mentioned among potential candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
Clearly, one of the most important roles for Fox going forward will be to "fight" and "get the message out" for the eventual GOP presidential nominee. However, it remains to be seen how the network is going to handle its various employees using their network as a platform to position themselves for a presidential run.
And make no mistake, Santorum has been open about using his Fox platform to bolster a potential presidential run. In an interview with National Review Online last month about his surely not-coincidental increased presence in Iowa, Santorum told NRO's Katelynd Mahoney that his role on Fox has "been big," and "helped folks remember who I am... It's a great platform, being able to talk about the current issues of the day."
As we documented, from the beginning of the year through September 18, the various Fox candidates spoke through Fox News in at least 269 appearances on the network. In September, Sarah Palin advised then-candidate Christine O'Donnell to "speak to the American people. Speak through Fox News."
Last month, Fox contributor and fellow potential presidential candidate Mike Huckabee hosted former Fox News employee John Kasich to plug the latter's then-candidacy for Ohio governor. During the interview Huckabee stressed to viewers the "importance" of Ohio in the "national political landscape," and noted that Obama "knows if he loses the governor's office in Ohio - which is ground zero - he's in deep trouble for 2012."
Fox News doesn't appear to be concerned that its employees are using network resources to position themselves for possible presidential runs. And it remains to be seen how the network will deal with its employees transitioning from theoretical candidates to actual candidates.
As we've documented extensively, Jim Hoft's pathological hatred for President Obama and all things liberal leads him to regularly make a fool out of himself. He often posts images that not only don't support his argument -- Obama "flipping off" John Boehner with two fingers comes immediately to mind -- but raise questions about how someone who is so intellectually bankrupt can manage to wield such influence in conservative media circles.
We have another embarrassment to add to the pile.
Last night, Hoft posted a story under the headline "BUMMER. Kid Dresses Up as Obama Joker For White House Halloween Party." He shows this picture (and embeds video) as evidence:
Hoft adds that "the kid forgot to write 'Socialist' on his T-shirt."
You know why he didn't write "Socialist" on his shirt, Jim? Because he isn't dressed as the "Obama Joker." He's just wearing what looks like Joker makeup. As far as I can tell, the only reason Hoft assumed he was dressed as the "Obama Joker" is because he is black.
Hoft also claims that the "president pushed the poor child on his way." If you watch the embedded video at Hoft's site, you'll see that Obama did nothing of the sort, unless you think placing your hand on a child's shoulder amounts to "pushing."
This staggering bit of idiocy -- which is entirely in character -- will not prevent Hoft from continuing to help lead the conversation in the conservative media. And of course, this being the conservative blogosphere, Hoft wasn't the only person to run with the "story." Weasel Zippers also posted the image and said it "[m]ust be like looking in the mirror, eh Barack?"
Fox Nation is now pushing this as well. Can one of these sites please explain in detail how they reached the conclusion that this kid was dressed as the "Obama Joker"? I'll wait.
Over the course of the past month, while promoting his new book that may "change the course of human events," radio host Michael Savage has announced that he has not only "saved talk radio" but is also the "foremost conservative intellectual."
Where does such a sharp mind get his information? Apparently, from Iranian state-owned TV.
Currently on the homepage of Michael Savage's website - underneath the giant ad for his new book - is the following story about how Obama is "unlikely to last 1st term":
This links to a story by Press TV, which is "sponsored by Iran's state-run television operation, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting."
As an added bonus, the story consists of quotes from Edward Spannus of the Executive Intelligence Review about people in the "Democratic Party who are seriously considering how to remove Obama from presidency." The Executive Intelligence Review is the weekly newsmagazine founded by fringe conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche.
Yet again, conservatives' vetting process for the stories they pick up seem to be: "Does this reflect poorly on the president? Print it!"
The last third of Glenn Beck's new book, Broke, is devoted to his "plan" to fix our supposedly broken country. (Spoiler alert: stop spending money, implement a flat tax, and privatize everything -- all while praying.)
Here's a rule of thumb: If you can Google something and find a private company to do that task, then that's probably where the responsibility for it should be. Profit motive has a funny way of making companies act efficiently. In fact, giving some tasks to companies can often run an expense item into a revenue item. [Broke, pg 308]
Beck proceeds to argue that we should consider privatizing, among other things, military arsenal production, ports, and air traffic control. After a brief, apparently irony-free section about rising health care costs -- remember folks, "profit motive has a funny way of making companies act efficiently" -- Beck announces a "War on Defense Dollars." As Beck explains it, "we must break free of this perpetual cycle of military operations that is helping to bankrupt us."
After announcing that he is "not an expert in this area," Beck turns to someone with more experience: Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater (now known as "Xe."). Beck repeats several of Prince's suggestions under the guise of Prince telling people "how to make the military more efficient."
Leaving aside the numerous other ethical scandals Blackwater has been involved in over the years, if Prince really wanted to help combat Pentagon waste, one of his first steps would have been to propose better-regulating companies like the one he founded.
In the lead-up to Glenn Beck's 8-28 rally in Washington D.C., Beck repeatedly tried to co-opt the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Beck's motivation was clear: by cloaking himself and his band of small government rabble-rousers with King's legacy, he hoped to inflate the historical significance of their gathering while hiding behind the shield of the civil rights movement's moral authority.
As I documented at the time, Beck's co-opting of King was a complete farce:
King forcefully advocated for drastic action by the federal government to combat poverty; supported "social justice"; called for an "economic bill of rights" that would "guarantee a job to all people who want to work"; and stated that we must address whether we need to "restructure the whole of American society" -- all ideas that Beck has vilified.
After his rally, Beck was pressed by Fox News' Chris Wallace about how the "civil rights movement was always about an economic agenda." Beck responded by saying that "that's a part of it that I don't agree with." This represented a major backtrack for Beck, who had accused progressives of "perverting" King's legacy by tying it to economic issues. Apparently Beck hasn't learned his lesson.
In his new book, Broke, in a section about how "entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are murdering our finances," Beck has the audacity to quote Martin Luther King Jr. to make his point. He writes:
As Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "No lie can live forever" -- well, these programs are based on the biggest lie of all: that money can be shuffled from person to person, from states to Washington and from trust fund to trust fund without consequence. It's time for that way of thinking (or, in this case, not thinking) to finally end. Progressive thought has brought us straight to the brink -- only an equal but opposite force can move us away from it. [Broke, pg 203-204]
Beck's invocation of King in this context is gratuitous and shameless.