TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Lou Dobbs

Lou Dobbs

In my personal opinion, there's only a handful of media personalities that I truly respect and one of those is Lou Dobbs. I am thankful for this man mostly because he speaks truth to power, often chastising both Democrats and Republicans because of their corporate interests.

He takes a great deal of flak from all sides but he does his research and usually comes out on top as a voice of reason.

One of the few to talk about the North American Union otherwise known as NAFTA...

No way. Lou Dobbs sucks ass as a news guy. Literally the exact same topic every single day.

I like keith olberman

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail No way. Lou Dobbs sucks ass as a news guy. Literally the exact same topic every single day.

Unfortunately I agree. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with his views on issues, especially his favorite topic of immigration, it becomes horribly, horribly monotonous to hear the same damn thing being said every day.

Plus his research from time to time could do a bit more, uhh, research:

quote:

�The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,� Mr. Dobbs said on his April 14, 2005, program. From there, he introduced his original report that mentioned leprosy, the flesh-destroying disease � technically known as Hansen�s disease � that has inspired fear for centuries. According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: �There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.� �Incredible,� Mr. Dobbs replied. Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the �60 Minutes� segment. �Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,� she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman. To sort through all this, I called James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen�s Disease Program, an arm of the federal government. Leprosy in the United States is indeed largely a disease of immigrants who have come from Asia and Latin America. And the official leprosy statistics do show about 7,000 diagnosed cases � but that�s over the last 30 years, not the last three. The peak year was 1983, when there were 456 cases. After that, reported cases dropped steadily, falling to just 76 in 2000. Last year, there were 137. �It is not a public health problem � that�s the bottom line,� Mr. Krahenbuhl told me. �You�ve got a country of 300 million people. This is not something for the public to get alarmed about.� Much about the disease remains unknown, but researchers think people get it through prolonged close contact with someone who already has it. What about the increase over the last six years, to 137 cases from 76? Is that significant? �No,� Mr. Krahenbuhl said. It could be a statistical fluctuation, or it could be a result of better data collection in recent years. In any event, the 137 reported cases last year were fewer than in any year from 1975 to 1996. So Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong. And when I spoke to him yesterday, he admitted as much, sort of. I read him Ms. Romans�s comment � the one with the word �suddenly� in it � and he replied, �I think that is wrong.� He then went on to say that as far as he was concerned, he had corrected the mistake by later broadcasting another report, on the same night as his on-air confrontation with the Southern Poverty Law Center officials. This report mentioned that leprosy had peaked in 1983. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/b...ess&oref=slogin

I can't watch any of this shit, it's just so monkey-like and staged.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I like keith olberman

Olberman douches.

he's about as much a journalist as i am.

he needs to go back to cracking jokes on highlight reels.

I find Dobbs to be quite the annoying idiot, actually.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Unfortunately I agree. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with his views on issues, especially his favorite topic of immigration, it becomes horribly, horribly monotonous to hear the same damn thing being said every day. Plus his research from time to time could do a bit more, uhh, research:

That was one thing in which I also had a hard time swallowing but it's probably one of the only real points of contention that I could come up with in regards to his fact checking. On all of his NAU and NWO pieces he seems to be at least 90% correct on just about everything that he says which I think is rather amazing when considering that it's being broadcast on a corporately owned news network like CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Olberman douches. he's about as much a journalist as i am. he needs to go back to cracking jokes on highlight reels.

I like Keith Olberman as well but I usually just catch him on YouTube.

What points has Olberman made that you don't agree with, Q? I mean, I'm sure there have been quite a few but I'd be interested in hearing you debate them rather than just broadly cast them aside as though they were meaningless. He seems to bring up quite a large number of important issues if you ask me. Many more than Lou Dobbs, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I find Dobbs to be quite the annoying idiot, actually.

Can you expound upon that or are double worded ad hominem's the furthest you can elaborate?

I mean, it's rather obvious that the man is not an idiot. I'd almost be willing to bet that his IQ is in the 120-140 range which would technically make him almost a genius

Edit: say what you will but Lou Dobbs is definitely not an idiot. They don't accept idiots into Harvard.

quote:

He earned a degree in economics from Harvard University, graduating in 1967 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I can't watch any of this shit, it's just so monkey-like and staged.

So what news do you watch? Is there really any good news, anywhere?

Investigative journalism is basically dead.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X So what news do you watch? Is there really any good news, anywhere? Investigative journalism is basically dead.

www.newscientist.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby www.newscientist.com

how about for news unrelated to science or technology?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X how about for news unrelated to science or technology?

LOL, how cute and naive.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby LOL, how cute and naive.

It was a rather serious question. My brother has had a subscription to it for about 12 years now and having had borrowed more copies than he would have liked, I've learned a considerable amount from it in that time. I can also say that I've read enough of it to know that it doesn't exactly cover too many facets in regards to our world's political or economic scene.

So I guess that means you're not going to answer my question?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X What points has Olberman made that you don't agree with, Q? I mean, I'm sure there have been quite a few but I'd be interested in hearing you debate them rather than just broadly cast them aside as though they were meaningless. He seems to bring up quite a large number of important issues if you ask me. Many more than Lou Dobbs, IMO.

his leftist views are shallow and contrived. as with just about all the viewpoints on MSNBC. i listen to many leftists that can carry themselves much better than he can intellectually.

it seems he gets a lot of his talking points from the interwebs.

in that same regard, he never invites opposing viewpoints on his program.

he douches.

for the record i'm impartial to O'Rielly. i find him to be too arrogant for my viewing tastes although i agree with him infinitely more than Olberdouche. that and i work nights so i can't be bothered around that time for either.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Can you expound upon that or are double worded ad hominem's the furthest you can elaborate? I mean, it's rather obvious that the man is not an idiot. I'd almost be willing to bet that his IQ is in the 120-140 range which would technically make him almost a genius Edit: say what you will but Lou Dobbs is definitely not an idiot. They don't accept idiots into Harvard.

Hmm, idiot may have been the wrong word. Bad journalist is perhaps far more appropriate. He has an agenda (on his one issue), and he completely disregards and attacks the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him. The conservative right is always looking for a liberal to paint with the same brush as O'Reilly (by ways of justifying O'Reilly ironically), but they should really look no further than Dobbs. I find him reactionary, and close-minded. So I've stopped watching him.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Hmm, idiot may have been the wrong word. Bad journalist is perhaps far more appropriate. He has an agenda (on his one issue), and he completely disregards and attacks the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him. The conservative right is always looking for a liberal to paint with the same brush as O'Reilly (by ways of justifying O'Reilly ironically), but they should really look no further than Dobbs. I find him reactionary, and close-minded. So I've stopped watching him.

I'd say that the bad journalists are the ones who report upon nothing but which they are told to report, the ones who are fed and in turn disseminate propagandized information directly from the White House, the Pentagon, from corporate interests, etc. (which is basically all that O'Reilly does.)

IMO, Lou Dobbs is one of the few journalists who even seems to give a sh*t about the plight of the average, middle class American worker.

BTW - he's a lifelong Republican (he only recently become an independent) but he's been painted as a liberal by those who don't agree with him simply because the issues that he raises are considered to be fringe issues. I believe that they're fringe issues only because few others have the courage (or well placed job security) to talk about them - but that doesn't lessen their importance.

If American corporations didn't seek lowest costs they would fail to survive in the global market which means much less jobs

The problem with the media...

The 5 filters of the Propaganda Model explain it best...

1. The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations.
2. The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product � readers and audiences � to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses.
3. In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information.
4. Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which go after the media for supposed bias and so on when they go out of line.
5. Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.