A tale of two networks
November 12, 2009 10:56 am ET by Simon Maloy
Consider for a moment the circumstances surrounding Lou Dobbs' abrupt departure from CNN, announced last night and effective immediately. Dobbs had been going increasingly far afield in his programming, from spinning North American Union conspiracy theories, to indulging the Birther nonsense, to claiming that his opponents had taken to shooting at his house (the police said it was likely an errant bullet from a hunter's rifle). Notably, CNN itself debunked each of these stories. According to the New York Times write-up of Dobbs' exit, Dobbs' on-air behavior was apparently too much for the network to bear: "Months ago the president of CNN/U.S., Jonathan Klein, offered a choice to Lou Dobbs, the channel's most outspoken anchor. Mr. Dobbs could vent his opinions on radio and anchor an objective newscast on television, or he could leave CNN."
Now, contrast CNN's Dobbs situation to Fox News and its handling of Glenn Beck. In terms of delusional conspiracy-mongering and spittle-flecked invective, Dobbs is a stripling compared to Beck. Fox News' steady transition from untrustworthy cable news network to conservative political action committee can largely be attributed to Beck, whose 9-12 Project is wrapped up with the Tea Party movement. Except for those that buy into his fevered shtick, Beck is an embarrassment, an embodiment of everything that is wrong with cable news, and there is no greater example of this than when he called the President of the United States a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network lost scores of advertisers over that remark, and, as NBC's First Read pointed out, "[t]here was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs."
But what happened to Beck? He got a pat on the head from NewsCorp president Rupert Murdoch, who said Beck "was right" to call the president a "racist."
CNN's movement on Dobbs was long overdue, but they eventually decided that their credibility as a news network outweighed Dobbs' (rapidly dwindling) ratings. Fox News, on the other hand, shows no such concern with Beck, maybe because they didn't have a whole lot of credibility to sacrifice in the first place.
Lou Dobbs should have been Fired with the President of CNN stating on what Basis.
Mr. Dobbs took Extreme Pleasure in Denigrating Hispanics.
The only time i should ever see Lou Dobbs working again is when i go to get my Oil Changed by a Grease Monkey Machanic.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
I admire them for this move, though as MMfA states, it should have happened a long time ago.
Mr. Maloy,
Please be careful with proper punctuation in your opinions. When speaking about people it is proper to use 'who' not 'that'.
Beyond that, your column is spot on!
I predict Dobbs being on Cluster Fox by years end!
Wouldn't that be grammar, not punctuation?
Shouldn't this be "year's end?"
Jeez, captfoster, if you're going to be a grammar nanny, at least get your own post right.
called>>> the politics of using basket waving to build a fence.
Beck has a FNC opinion show.
I suspect Lou Dobbs will soon be signing on at FNC where he belongs,
And it doesn't go for both sides. The offensive behavior from the right is never matched by those on the left. There is no equivalency, and we dare you to prove this wrong with examples similar to Hannity's staff purposefully pulling 2 month old archived tapes of the 9/12 rally to fill video slots about the rally last week in Washington, or any other number of examples MMFA has exhibited over the last few years.
If you're lying, or distorting, or omitting information that's relevant, then yeah, you're wrong and we're right, but again, it has nothing to do with your opinion!
MMFA doesn't complain about bias. That's the schtick of Newsbusters and the Media Research Center (MRC) which are two groups on the right side of the aisle. They allege bias and slant. MMFA only discusses misinformation in the media that benefits conservatives or conservative principles. The truth isn't biased. Facts are impartial. They don't care who uses them. They're neutral.
Objective parties "object" to distortions and omissions if they want a fair debate to take place.
And your failure to be able to be "objective" doesn't mean that no one else can accomplish that goal.
1. "You guys demonize anyone with an opinion different from yours!" The fallback defense for those who stay stupid/outrageous stuff and get called on it.
2. "You're reverse racists!" A ploy to deflect from one's own racism while also claiming they're actually the ones who are oppressed.
3. "You're scared of [fill in the blank]." A nonsensical rebuttal to smart people who object to lowbrow populists like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.
4. "You're just jealous." Pretty much always a defense of Sarah Palin, but sometimes used in response to criticism of Fox News. It gets high ratings, you know.
5. And finally, no matter what the issue is ... it's Obama's fault.
For a lot of these right wing conservatives, news and opinion go hand in hand, so I am certain Dobbs will be considered a Tea Party martyr...
--------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
"Months ago the president of CNN/U.S., Jonathan Klein, offered a choice to Lou Dobbs, the channel's most outspoken anchor. Mr. Dobbs could vent his opinions on radio and anchor an objective newscast on television, or he could leave CNN."
And he couldn't make himself do that! He couldn't control his obsessions. It's like an alcoholic.
CNN couldn't claim the high road while they still employed him, and yeah, FoxNews doesn't hold the high road, so Beck isn't as toxic to their brand.
http://www.theonion.com/content/index
dualing blackboards
But, Murdoch is an Australian. He was not raised in American culture, and does not... could not... have that special reverence for the news that is bred in all of us at an early age, and carried into adulthood - regardless of our political stripe.
To Murdoch, The News is just another business oppportunity.