Olbermann named Dobbs "Worst Person" for saying ADL is "a joke"
On MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann named CNN host Lou Dobbs the "winner" of his "Worst Person in the World" segment for calling the Anti-Defamation League a "joke," as Media Matters for America documented.
On the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named CNN host Lou Dobbs the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for calling the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) a "joke," as Media Matters for America documented. Olbermann stated: "[N]ow he's [Dobbs] going after the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, still a bastion against anti-Semitism and for civil rights. In an exchange with a guest, Dobbs says, 'The ADL is' -- the guest says, 'They're a very well-respected voice.' Dobbs says, 'Not by me.' The guest says, 'The Anti-Defamation League?' Dobbs says, 'They are a joke.' " Olbermann concluded: "Well, Lou, here's your big chance. You can start your presidential campaign now and get yourself nominated by your own brand-new party, the Pro-Defamation League."
From the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But our winner: Lou Dobbs, not content with his perfectly symmetrical hypocrisy, xenophobic anti-immigration rhetoric during the week, supporting the show-horse industry, which could not survive without illegal immigrants, during the weekend. No, no, now he's going after the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, still a bastion against anti-Semitism and for civil rights. In an exchange with a guest, Dobbs says, "The ADL is" -- the guest says, "They're a very well-respected voice." Dobbs says, "Not by me." The guest says, "The Anti-Defamation League?" Dobbs says, "They are a joke." Well, Lou, here's your big chance. You can start your presidential campaign now and get yourself nominated by your own brand-new party, the Pro-Defamation League. Lou Dobbs, today's "Worst Person in the World."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Olbermann is the joke for continuing to mischaracterize Dobbs as being "xenophobic anti-immigration", when he is clearly anti-ILLEGAL immigration.
These Worst Person segments look even more ridiculous when he has to make stuff up about those pesky competitors he whines about every night.
Translation of Tommy's post (YES! He Gets in the first post AGAIN!):
"I can't defend Dobbs here, so let me shift the focus to Olbermann. Put the libs on the defensive."
P.S.: Olbermann isn't making up anything here.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/4/fact_checking_dobbs_cnn
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801170017?f=s_search
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511140004
I just don't appreciate you kissing up to Dobbs as if he is always on the straight and narrow - escpecially when this story and Clam's links blow your statement right out of the water.
Those are your examples that Dobbs is anti-immigration? Ha! Why don't you go back and read the entire transcripts of those programs in their full and complete context, and get back to us.
I know you reflexively cherry pick quotes and run with them as some sort of proof to shore up your argument, but in this case you are way off base, again.
Ha, you expect me to believe that. If you had read the entire transcripts and consistently watch Dobbs' show, you wouldn't be misrepresenting his positions, and you would know what you're talking about.
Which you don't.
But keep digging. It's mildly amusing to see watch and see exactly how many times you're going to cry "out of context" without ever explaining how the broader context explains Dobbs's comments.
The point is anyone can cherry pick quotes or grab one line or two over an entire career, as there are always exceptions, but that doesn't make your case that Dobbs doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.
He does so on a consistent basis, and if you watched his program and dealt fairly and honestly here, instead of distorting and mischaracterizing only to back up Olbermann, as he does the same thing, you would admit that. But instead, fairness takes a back seat in trying to argue with me, and your pathetic attempt to try and win it.
If you think Lou Dobbs is as opposed to legal immigration as he is to illegal immigration, then I challenge you to show me his exact quote emphatically stating that very thing.......otherwise you have nothing.
You know what, I'm just going to repost your last paragraph, just so I can laugh at it a little more at your ridiculous debating style (if you can even call it that):
"If you think Lou Dobbs is as opposed to legal immigration as he is to illegal immigration, then I challenge you to show me his exact quote emphatically stating that very thing.......otherwise you have nothing."
Do you really not see how ridiculously dishonest you're being here?
Read it again, by all means. You said Dobbs has a long history of lumping them together, illegals and legal immigrants with the same negative rhetoric. Hello, lumping them together, as in they are the same.
Are you actually that pathetic to think they are not the same thing? Your circular arguments must have you incredibly dizzy, take a pill honey.....
Typical Tommy tactics. You were completely blowing smoke. Dobbs got caught making racist statements, and you could only blindly make the defense that he was taken out of context. When you were forced to explain how, how couldn't, but instead just kept repeating the same blind defense.
That was pretty pathetic.
But then you got even more pathetic by moving the goal posts, exactly as Clams pointed out. Do you think no one else notices?
And then, finally unable to answer, you make a completely illogical argument, that even you must realize is ilogical. Illegal imigrants are not the same as legal imigrants. Last, you end with an insult.
I think it shows that Dobbs reflexively cherry picks data and distorts it, either intentionally or because he's just plain sloppy, in a rush to get ammunition for his arguments.
He did the same thing with the prison statistics and the leprosy cases.
If you question the consistency of Lou Dobbs' stance on immigration, that means you're pro-illegal immigration.
When you mischaracterize Dobbs' position as being anti-immigrant, obviously you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit you disagree with him and his anti-illegal immigration stance, which I guess, makes you pro-illegal immigration. Not hard to figure.
Why is it so hard for liberals to say what they believe, instead of parsing their way around every issues, sheesh.......
I was talking about questioning Dobbs' consistency, not mischaracterizing his position. Clams questioned his consistency.
We (you, Clams and myself), to the best of my knowledge, are not media commentators for the most trusted name in news. We are not taking advantage our media status to forward our own political position on a particular issue. For the record, Dobbs is free to do that every bit as much as we are free to question his consistency and accuracy without being thrust into a corner and politically labeled on the issue at hand.
If Dobbs, or any commentator for that matter, is going to use their position and status for such a purpose and make claims of consistency and accuracy, which Dobbs has, then he is subject to scrutiny for those claims.
I did watch part of the Democracy Now! interview when it aired and I do admire Dobbs for agreeing to it. This is something that the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh would never do, since they cannot confront critics unless it's in their studio where they have control of the microphones and the format.
(Was "thrust" too strong of a hyperbole? I want to make sure I'm not violating the comment rules.)
Pete,
Of course Dobbs can be criticized, but to try and paint him as being anti-immigrant, which is exactly what Olbermann is saying, and Clams so quickly defends, is outrageously unfair. He may make a dumb comment on occasion, as we all do, but to use that as some common example when it clearly is an exception is more unfairness.
He is one of only a handful of people who is genuinely concerned about this issue and has been way before it became the cause dujour for the rest. He is committed to pushing towards securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
But then you get race baiters like Olbermann, and Clams, out here out to demonize him by saying he is anti-immigration, and that is not only slanderous, but ridiculous.
Race baiting is distorting the debate by demonizing people because it suites your argument. Look how far Dobbs has to go to maintain his "air tight" argument: Give the ADL joke status, lie about diseases and use sinister plots to invade the United States from racist organizations.
Dobbs is the host of the show and an advocate at the same time. Why is this considered good journalism?
"The TRUTH is what this place is all about"
Here, here. And it will always win out (no rhyme intended).
Care to address that point?
I read your links, they prove nothing. You can defend Olbermann all you want too, he has called Dobbs a racist as well, in the past - so he invalidates any criticism of him, in my opinion.
I am glad you agree with Lou Dobbs on illegal immigration, perhaps you should tell your pal Keith to stop lying about him, and begin to address the illegal immigration problem on his own program, instead of name calling and unfair bashing of those that do more than whine about their competitors as Olbermann is so fond of doing.
tell your pal Keith to stop lying about him
What lie did Olbermann tell?
And those links very clearly show Dobbs lumping together legals and illegals. They directly contradict your first post, and simply dismissing that out of hand doesn't change that fact. But then I wouldn't have expected you to acknowledge your error.
So, if you don't "support" illegal immigration, which is the exact position of Lou Dobbs, or myself for that matter, then what is your position? You agree, but your positions are not the same? Parsing extraordinare, fabulous.
And for the record, I am very familiar with Dobbs' position on this issue, he is very clear on the distinction between legal immigration, and illegal immigration. Are you going to sit there and tell us that Lou Dobbs is against legal immigration, you will just look foolish, again - perhaps you should watch his program as well, and then you won't have to rely on Olbermann or this website for your information, and you will be more informed, would do you a world of good.
So, no, I don't agree with Dobbs, and yet I also don't support illegal immigration. But don't worry, I'll understand if you're unable to wrap your mind around that.
By marginalizing Dobbs and his efforts through your typical distortions, then you are an illegal immigrant proponent.
But I understand your reluctance to admit that, for if you do you will have to explain your position and the condoning of undercutting American jobs and wages to your liberal brethren, so you parse and distort your way out of it and hope nobody notices.
Sorry Sweetheart, we notice.
"By marginalizing Dobbs and his efforts through your typical distortions, then you are an illegal immigrant proponent."
That, of course, is a sterling example of Tommylogic. I don't even feel the need to point out why that statement is a fallacy, because I'm sure the flawed thinking is obvious to everyone. But I will take the opportunity to once again ask you to point out exactly how I'm distorting Dobbs's statements. And I mean exactly. What part of my post is the slightest bit misleading or untrue?
In other words, you refuse to denouce illegal immigration and its proponents, so you slam Dobbs on not being 100% politically correct in every word, but then you say you agree with his general point anyway? Wow.
And you call me on my logic, you are amazing. Why not just be honest and say you are illegal immigrant proponent and stop such a ninny about what you believe. Then go and ask forgiveness to the poor, hard working Americans who have been thrown out of job by what you are in favor of, see what they say.
If I may jump in, because this one is just outrageous....
To agree with Dobbs that illegal immigration is well, illegal, does NOT automatically mean that I or anyone else holds in lockstep with every conflated viewpoint that Dobbs throws out. Dobbs nightly M.O. of inflating numbers and fearmongering is NOT ok with many reasonable people. I do not agree with him there, even though again, I agree that illegal immigration is, well, illegal. He is, in many cases, a flat-out liar.
Tommy, I always say your ostensibly a clever poster who pretends not to get it, but I think I was wrong. You actually just don't get it, do you?
No, you too can't see it, and I am not surprised. You demonize and marginalize Dobbs by implying that his entire argument is fearmongering racially motivated. That is absurd. If you would take his stance in totality and not cherry pick instances only to show him in the worst possible light, then I wouldn't doubt your position on illegal immigration either.
However, the way you and Clams go out of your way to negatively frame Dobbs' position, then don't wonder why it's a little ridiculous to then try and claim you agree with his overriding point on this issue. Forgive me if I am skeptical.
I disagree with the tactics he uses. I disagree with his conflating illegal and legal immgrants. I disgaree with his inflating numbers to create fear, and therefore make a point. I disagree with using false information. So no, I do not take his stance in "totality".
Why should I have to?
What is so very hard for you to understand here?
Can't you see, those are not the "tactics" he uses, that is the point. Your attempts to say they are is why your support for his overall positions is about as disingenous as it gets. Has he made stupid comments in the past, or has he had a guest on his show who may have ulterior motives?, of course, but to say those are his "tactics" is ludicruous, and why I am suspect of your so-called support for his position.
Let me help you, liberals are really stuck with this whole illegal immigration issue, they don't know how to play it. They can't be forcefully against it, because they will be accused of racism, much the same way Dobbs is, unfairly. And they can't be for it either for everyone knows how detrimental it is to the poorest Americans who have seen their jobs/wages undercut.
So you, apparently, try to reframe the entire debate to one about "tactics" instead of substance - all to avoid being forthright about your positions.
That is the real point. There is one liberal on these boards who is intellectually honest about this issue, and he has my admiration. That is mefirst.
But if you can't see what I am saying, and of course you won't admit it, I can't help you.
Do you honestly feel that anyone who doen't agree completely with everything Lou Dobbs does or says is a proponent of illegal immigration? That seems to be your point.
No, you are continuing to reframe it. One more time, if you ascribe that Dobbs uses these tactics, which he does not on an consistent basis, and as Clams said originally, lumps illegals and legals together, then you are being unfair to his position.
Why would you choose to do that, to be unfair, to distort his years on this issue, to ascribe motives such as racism, which Olbermann did, and then turn around and say you agree with him? It makes no sense.
That would be like saying you agree with repealing Bush's tax cuts but then cherry pick instances from either Clinton or Obama about how they have never been 100% consistent in their opposition to them, and use that to bash them unfairly. You wouldn't do that, nobody would - IF you really agreed with them on the issue itself.
I have explained it plenty, if you don't agree, fine.
So he does conflate illegal and legal immigrants, he does use inflated numbers, he does have an alarmist tone, just not "consistently" enough for you to find it a problem. How many times, would you say, that using false information is allowed before you deem it troubling?
Looks like I simply have higher standards than you when it comes to the news, or in this case, advocacy journalism.
Also, if he had made one "mistake" in his career, that's one thing. He has made many. They are documented here, and elsewhere. There is an hour long interview with Dobbs on Democracy Now! that goes through numerous examples of his many "mistakes". I think after a while, after years of many similar "mistakes", they are no longer mistakes. He has a certain ease with facts when it comes to inflating numbers in respect to immigrants.
But bottom line, I can disagre with Dobbs and still be against illegal immigration. To say otherwise is so utterly absurd.
A possible liberal view - Tuff border security with a human approach to people who, like it or not are now a part of society.
Requiring them to come forward and pay a large fine, requiring them to show that they know English, have a job, and have not been involved in criminal activies IS NOT AMNENSTY. If I get a speeding ticket I do not loose my liscence, I pay a fine or is that amnesty too.
Lou thinks its the end of the world
Well, Tommy, I guess I'm slow today, so please put your reasoning into syllogistic form for me, because I can't see your logic regarding Clams. The closest I can come is:
Anyone who criticizes anything Dobbs says about immigration is pro illegal immigration;
Clams criticizes some of Dobbs immigration statements;
Clams is pro illegal immigration.
Clearly the primary statement is flawed, so the conclusion is faulty. How do you get there?
Regarding Lou's opinion about what a "real American" is, he can kiss this Irish-American (veteran's) arse.
THAT IS NOT THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
So in other words, anything can be broadcast as long as it stops illegal immigration. Any advocate for stopping illegal immigration is immune to criticism or better yet, to be encouraged because the end justifies the means. Lou can pop any "fact" he wants to out of whatever dark place and its ok because it is for a good cause.
No wonder conservatives support so many of these "got it all figured out" media personalities. The truth is not worth anything. Being on the right side of the argument is, even if you have to distort and lie.
"No wonder conservatives support so many of these "got it all figured out" media personalities. The truth is not worth anything. Being on the right side of the argument is, even if you have to distort and lie."
Good observation. There's always a way to "win" an argument by misquoting, misattributing, twisting words, and using straw men, amongst other tactics.
And another frightened old geezer who likes to hide his hate & fear behind the "rule of law" curtain. He's just concerned about illegal immigration, not the fate of the Fatherland.
Before you get on his case about "affect" vs. "effect", please make sure you spell "other undocumented" correctly. In speech, no one would have noticed.
That doesn't make Tommy's point correct. Illegal immigrants aren't having nearly the effect on our lives as is the legal offshoring of high-paying jobs, under the auspices of profit. Profit of that sort, helps only the investing class.
You just called Dobbs a frightened old geezer who is stuck on that pesky rule of law thing. Your words Col., not mine.
"stuck on that pesky rule of law thing"
Sorry, Tommy, not my words, those are yours.Please don't lie any more, it's too close to the weekend. ;0)
If they all came here legally and had those jobs, wouldn't the wages be basically the same? Wages are low for a variety of reasons and not all of them have to do with desperate people who will clean toilets or pick crops so you can have low prices. GLOBALIZATION has done wonders for wages in this country. If you want higher wages, promote unions and protect industries. Instead outsourcing means we compete with the whole world for wages. The difference is those poor huddled masses are out of sight, out of mind. Nevertheless, wages are driven down.
Of course its much more fun to blame the poor and therefor more demonic illegal immigrant than to look at the greed and fantasy driven world of finance and corperate ethics. Either way, any real journalist will try to get at the truth, with all its warts and complexity. Instead we get Dobbs, who has it all figured out for us - just don't dare question him. He is on a rightous crusade.
Any real effort at the truth would have a host that does not have an agenda as a major personality who has all the answers. For some reason, that type of format is rejected by the networks who prefere to have some always right larger than life personality. Oh my, I criticized lou dobbs! Obviously I want to give each illegal alien a free college education and permission to destroy English
And speaking of the Anti-Defamation League, is anyone aware of their new report taking issue with the anti-Semitism of the Venezuelan regime of Hugo Chavez?
(Yes--the same Hugo Chavez invoked by certain misguided conservatives as a bete noire to question the presumed want of Loyalty and True Patriot Love among Liberals and Progressives.)
The ADL's primary concern is the perception of Jews. As long as they label those who disagree with Israeli policy towards Arabs as anti-Semitic, then I see no problem with them being attacked in the media.
Those things that Chavez said about the Jews? Heinous, but not dissimilar than what is said about Muslims in this country.
Olbermann claims the show-horse industry could not survive without illegal immigration. True or false? I think false. They probably do use plenty of illegal immigrants at this time but that doesn't mean the industry couldn't survive without them.
Olbermann claims the show-horse industry could not survive without illegal immigration. True or false? I think false. They probably do use plenty of illegal immigrants at this time but that doesn't mean the industry couldn't survive without them.
I think true, after all who going to rake the sh*t out of the stalls? Certainly not those riding the show horses and since the pay is low not many Americans lining up to rake sh*t either.
If your ever in Southern California take a trip to the backside of Del Mar race track or actually any race track. Eyeopening experience, guaranteed.
The first thing to come up in a Google search of Olbermann adl is this:
www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm
Seems Olbermann has not always had such a high regard for what the ADL has said...
"Seems Olbermann has not always had such a high regard for what the ADL has said... "
Your post would be true only unless, after getting that letter, Olbermann continued to use the "Seig, Heil" phrase (a phrase which, btw, Olbermann had used to critique that very virtuous guy -a guy who would never defame anybody-, Bill O'Reilly.)
I understand your point regarding subsequent Nazi salutes, but if KO truly had a high regard for the ADL he would have made a public apology to them, acknowledging that he changed because of them.
Do you also call on Dobbs to make a "public apology" to the ADL for calling them "a joke". If so, I haven't seen your call as yet. Or do you give Dobbs a break because you agree with him? If that's the case, your deep concern for the ADL would seem to be very selectively applied.
I do think Dobbs should make a public apology (no quotes needed) to the ADL for his insulting characterizaion.
I do not personally have a "deep concern" (quotes needed) for the ADL. They function quite well without my direct involvement.
I think MMFA readers are served if KO's inconsistencies are pointed out, since MMFA articles omit these. Of course, Olbermannwatch.com does this extremely well, but I doubt that not many of us read both OW and MMFA.
1. I copied all of Dave's comments to refer to them in my reply. They scrolled off-screen and I did not realize they would reprint.
2. Unintended double negative in my last sentence: Few of us read both MMFA and OW.
Then why did you only demand Olbermann apologize to the ADL and not Dobbs for calling ADL "a joke"??
Do you go to Olbermannwatch.com and demand that they cover misinformation about Olbermann?? If you don't --and I'll bet you don't-- then you're holding Media Matters to a different standard.
Adding also that Dobbs attacked the ADL. Olbermann attacked O'Reilly.
Yet "Showme" comes here and sez it's Olbermann that needs to apologize to the ADL.
Go figure that one.
Dave, reread what I wrote.
IMHO, both KO and LD should apologize to the ADL.
KO offended the members of the ADL, since he not only did his sieg heil thing once, but joked about it later on the Tonight show and apparently other venues. Their statement speaks for itself. While KO obviously did it as an attention grabbing device and an attack on O'Reilly, his "shotgun" hit some unintended targets.
As to me going over to Olbermann Watch and complaining when they misrepresent KO: I only see small fragments of Countdown. OW summarizes his daily shows and make videos of the parts they think are notable. Sort of like an MMFA limited to one person.
I have looked at the site that watches Olberman Watch (There actually is one, the one written by the person asked to write a letter to Playboy to "balance" the ones critical of KO), but there is very little stuff there, much of it old. Not a good source for countering OW.
Back on O'Reilly: OW tracks the KO attacks on BOR, and they now have reached at least 413.
PS: KO has accused someone else of "pimping":
And in **pimping** General David Petraeus, Sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have...
Source: OW, natch!
Both of your first two posts were about Olbermann. You said nothing about --nor asked nothing of --Dobbs. Even tho Dobbs is the only one that attacked the ADL.
Clearly, Dobbs calling the ADL "a joke" is very serious charge. Clearly Olbermann didn't make any reference to the ADL whatsoever. Yet you gave Dobbs a pass and demand Olbermann apologize.
And you still demand Olbermann apologize.
It's fair to say you hold a double standard.
"Back on O'Reilly: OW tracks the KO attacks on BOR, and they now have reached at least 413"
And your point is what? That O'Reilly didn't deserve to be held accountable ---excuse, me, "attacked", as you put it--- for any of those 413 remarks? Give me a break.
It's as if it's 'poor, poor, mistreated Bill O'Reilly. Bill never, ever attacks anyone. Why oh why does kind-hearted, non-partisan Bill get picked-on by mean old people like Olbermann?
To everybody except Dave:
I read MMFA regularly, but only post occasionally. I see no point in joining a chorus singing "right on" all the time: Enough here perform that role already.
I do post when things seem out of balance, such as this series highlighting Keith Olbermann (again) for his WPITW call-out on Lou Dobbs, while it was otherwise omited that the ADL had their own past issues with Keith. When challenged by Dave, I responded that I also thought Dobbs should apologize. He now goes back to try to make an issue about me not commenting about Dobbs straight away, what I see as joining the chorus.
Dave more recently tried to put words in my mouth as if I said that KO should make no complaints about BOR. I think KO makes an EXCESSIVE number of complaints about BOR. Over 400 is excessive, in my humble opinion. It passes into the obsessive.
The TV critic for the Kansas City Star is an Olbermann fan, and wrote locally of his interview with him. He wrote that when MSNBC moved from NJ to NYC, Olbermann chose an office that overlooks the Fox News studios and that he has a life-size cardboard cut-out of Bill O'Reilly in his new office. Like I said before, obsessive.
Ah Tommy, the wordsmith is at it again...
The poster who noted that he moves the goal posts is spot on. That's what he does. That's all he does. Well, and insists on pushing his utopian view on us.
Keith O , thou protest too much .
At least tell the part about the ADL's San Francisco Police Dept. SCANDAL , where it was proven in court , the ADL used ADL agent Roy Bullock to illegally obtain files from over 10,000 citizens from S.F. police officer Tom Gerard .
Jewish journalist Robert I. Friedman says the ADL is "the largest private spy agency in America... working behind the scenes to stifle intellectual freedom."
The S.F. case showed private information was from Critics of israel , including jews , Muslims and even blacks because of their anti=Apartheid work . (Israel had a long , extensive , relationship with South Africa , including arms deals, shared technology work etc. ) , and wanted to intimidate critics .
ADL was ordered to pay 150,000 . Throw in AIPACS scandal , when Larry Franklin was CONVICTED for giving secrets to AIPAC executives , Rose & Weisman .
Keith , shows there are limits to your rants and certain areas you protect dearly , but doesn't make you any more honest .
Kahoneez