Jackson Free Press

A few comments on my last blog about immigration made my heart pound with indignation in a way that felt oddly familiar. Was it the Jackson 2020-- a group dedicated to racial reconciliation-- meeting I attended where one woman described how illegal Puerto Ricans had "destroyed" her hometown in Massachusetts? (I had to laugh, because Puerto Ricans are legal U.S. citizens.) Was it that flare of hatred I have seen in people's eyes when they asked why Latinos didn't learn English? (As I commented on that blog-- it's certainly not out of spite. In fact, it would only willingly be out of stupidity. Not knowing English is a severe handicap, no matter where you live in the States.) It might have been both of these things, but more than anything it was the feeling I get whenever I see Lou Dobb's face, wrought with affected concern, on T.V.

David Leonhardt has written an impasioned column on Dobbs for the New York Times that sums up what I always knew-- but didn't have the figures to prove. Lou Dobbs is fanning the flame of racial intolerance against Latinos with distorted reporting-- including statistically inaccurate inferences that a largely Latino group of illegal immigrants are spreading crime, rape, disease and-- in his largest bungle yet-- leprosy! Read the Leonhardt article, and if you're not convinced that Dobbs completely misconstrued a figure to imply that 7,000 cases of leprosy have cropped up, via immigrants, in the past 3 years when in fact that figure is true for the last 30, read the transcript of the Lou Dobbs Report in which he defended his reporting to Richard Cohen and Mark Potok, a couple of steadfast guys from the Southern Poverty Law Center. In that conversation, Dobbs maintains that he is not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant. That disingenous argument sounds familiar.

Leonhardt ends with a bang. I think my heart is beating normally again:

The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.

There is no denying that this country's immigration system is broken. But it defies belief — and a whole lot of economic research — to suggest that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, remember, are largely non-English speakers without a high school diploma. They have probably hurt the wages of native-born high school dropouts and made everyone else better off.

More to the point, if Mr. Dobbs's arguments were really so good, don't you think he would be able to stick to the facts? And if CNN were serious about being "the most trusted name in news," as it claims to be, don't you think it would be big enough to issue an actual correction?

Previous Comments

ID

113203

Comment

Matt, I've watched his program a few times recently because I heard about his "War on the Middle Class" series and I wanted to know what he had to say about it. I thought I would be more about the haves vs. the have-nots, but the intense focus on illegal immigration left me wondering whether or not his program was true reporting or a platform for propaganda. I also agree that the immigration system is broken - why else would so many people rather come here illigally if immigration laws worked so well? Why doesn't Dobbs talk about outsourcing jobs? I think that's a bigger war on the middle class than illegal immigration. What doesn't he confront some of his fatcat friends for not hiring SKILLED workers right here in the States? I saw his interview with the Law Center folks, and I was taken aback by the white supremacist comment. That was enough to wake me up and make me decide to stop watching his show. However, I think CNN is slow to act because they're afraid of how their viewership will be affected. You know, if a large number of my viewers on Sunday afternoon are white supremacists, I could do without those viewers.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-05-31T06:04:49-06:00

ID

113204

Comment

Here's an example of propaganda from the CNN transcript you linked above: LOU DOBBS, HOST: Tonight, a political setback for the pro-illegal alien amnesty movement and its supporters in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill. Can the pro-amnesty lobby push through so-called comprehensive immigration reform? We'll have complete coverage for you tonight. [emphasis mine]

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-05-31T06:11:18-06:00

ID

113205

Comment

He was so much better as a financial reporter.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2007-05-31T07:21:47-06:00

ID

113206

Comment

The title "American Bigot" says it all: I think a lot of these pundits (O'Reilly anyone?) are allowed to push their prejudices and agendas by calling it PATRIOTISM. But then again, they would label me a "Secular Progressive." Tsk Tsk

Author

HaHa

Date

2007-05-31T08:36:37-06:00

ID

113207

Comment

I thought this paragraph from the NYT piece was important: For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That’s wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population). For a variety of reasons, the crime rate is actually lower among immigrants than natives. Did you hear that, Mr. O'Reilly?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2007-05-31T09:33:26-06:00

ID

113208

Comment

Dobbs: An answer for my critics

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2007-05-31T11:46:08-06:00

ID

113209

Comment

Thanks Jeff. One of the things that undermines Dobbs' credibility is that he keeps acting as if he issued a correction when he did not. 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. That simply isn't good enough, because it isn't actually a correction. A correction would look like this: We reported 7,000 cases of leprosy in three years when the country actually suffered 7,000 cases over 30 years. Leprosy cases peaked in 1983. We apologize for the error. That would be a correction. Moreover, Dobbs does backflips to distort what is at stake: Today's New York Times column is primarily a personal attack on me ... Later, he calls it a "scurrilous personal attack." He concludes: Well, as I said tonight at the outset, I don't like personal attacks from both the left and the right wings, but I'm getting kind of used to it. I will assure you that we'll continue to report on the nonpartisan independent reality that is too often overwhelmed by the ideologues in our national media, the left wing and the right wing. And I'll guarantee you this: Those attacks from the left and the right will continue. They perhaps may get even a little more energetic. And as long as they continue to do so, you and I can rest assured that we're doing more right than wrong on this broadcast. The Times' column was not a personal attack, though the author describes Dobbs' defense as "shameless." The column was, instead, a professional attack on factual distortions Dobbs has perpetrated. The column contested Dobbs' distortion of "nonpartisan indepedent reality." Claiming it's a personal attack is professionally irresponsible and disingenuous. As for Dobbs' self-aggrandizing claim that criticism proves he's doing "more right than wrong," that's just juvenile. If that were true, Bill O'Reilly might actually have won that Peabody he lied about years ago. Dobbs has always been beneath my radar, but after seeing his response to these charges, I'm putting him on the dishonest, full of himself, full of crap list.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2007-05-31T12:48:46-06:00

ID

113210

Comment

I'm neither a Dobbs fan or critic as I find his commentaries rather one-dimensional, but his defense of his claim regarding the 7,000 leprosy cases was ridiculous. I don't have to tell y'all that it's shoddy journalism to dish out "information" without knowing the facts, or to issue a proper retraction when mistakes and mistatements are made. His defense that it was only an ad-lib suggests that he doesn't have much of a commitment to the truth to support his anti-illegal immigration crusade.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2007-05-31T15:30:07-06:00

ID

113211

Comment

Dobbs' claim that he is being picked on sounds very Meltonian to me.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-05-31T16:16:56-06:00

ID

113212

Comment

Some of his stuff is fascinating. Immigration isn't a strong suit. ;)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-05-31T18:20:01-06:00