Dumping Dobbs: Good News for News

...

I'm not defending Dobbs. But your assertion that anyone who does not prescribe to the CNN verson of left-leaning journalism is a rabble-rousing lout - is aprehensible.

as is this comment:
"with just a trace of anti-immigration racism"

Just because people wish to keep LEGAL immigration, doesn't make them racist - especially since "hispanic" is not a race. I'm all for opening the immigration gates a bit more - but not for the same reasons that democrats or republicans are. Since we are not increasing the poplulation naturally through children enough to keep the nation's culture alive - we must allow more people in. Otherwise we will not be able to compete worldwide.
The democrats want to legalize illegals already here so they can cater to them as a way of getting more electoral votes in elections. The republicans want them here for cheap labor.
I personally think Mexicans (and other Hispanics) are amazing people who positively add to out cultural fabric. I only want them to learn English and pay taxes.

Just because people wish to keep LEGAL immigration, doesn't make them racist

Absolutely true! The problem with Dobbs is that he wishes to fight the immigration battle utilizing outright falsehoods as was demonstrated in the post.

Now, if we want to give Lou the benefit of the doubt and just assume he's an idiot and not a dishonest commentator we can, but that doesn't boost his standing very much.

ust because people wish to keep LEGAL immigration, doesn't make them racist

Of course they are, just like anyone who is opposed to wealth redistribution is a heartless Conservative racist.

Or just like anyone opposing the war in Iraq was an unpatriotic traitor.

Don't believe me? just ask your nearest far-left or far-right pundit. We are a nation of 100% low life despicable creatures when you take the lists of the far wings in sum. Its little wonder we can't seem to solve anything and meet in the middle.

One additional note: if you want a network that has been "comparatively fair-minded" I'd pick ABC not CNN.

Dobbs leaves, the little kiddies continue to snipe at him -- pathetic, but predictable.

"I'd pick ABC not CNN."

I already knew not to pick CNN, but thanks for the ABC heads up. I had long ago given up on news. ABC did have the best election coverage last year.


If only we could have two anchors per news show at all times to guarantee the offset. It may end up like Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain....."Jane, you ignorant slut...."

CNN = Clearly Not Neutral. They could use a good deal of quality control, too; much of their programming is dumbed-down and gimmicky, when not also unprofessional to downright flippant or silly. (I've noticed, for example, a notable dumbing-down of Campbell Brown's show this year, which now not only features gimmicky graphics and sound effects associated with some made-up term "mash-up," but which now features intentionally stupid programming to start each show, featuring deliberately sped-up motion.) Lou Dobbs is ordinary to the risk of being labeled mediocre by absolute standards, but he was better than most of the others on that network, including the standard "news" crew.

Even the childish lefty critics here and elsewhere reveal an inability to intelligently spot reasonable grounds for remarks (albeit, not strident), such as Dobbs's female guest appearances that featured the routine 120-to-135-degree-angle gratuitious "leg shots" and appearances' ends. (I.e., lightweight sexism)

Terrific, now they can devote the entire hour to fact checking a few more Saturday Night Live skits.

I am tired of all the self (view point) serving so called news shows that only spin one point of view, I would like to find a good evening news show that only present who, what, when and where and let me decide for myself the WHY. Remember Cronkite, Brinkly, and the likes that simply reported the evening news.

News use to be who, what, when and where, now too much why which is simply opinion, and intelligent person can make up his own mind when given simple facts not spun or slanted. I don't like these rich guys trying to tell me how I should feel about an issue. At 50K a year income I have more in common with an illegal alien than I do with multi millionaire Dobbs I and the illegal want the same thing a shot at making a living in a very tough world.

Well, I consider Dobbs' sudden exit (stage right) a step in the right direction for CNN - not necessarily because of any lefty/righty balance, but because he was just plain uninformative and unentertaining. It didn't always used to be that way - several years ago Dobbs was a fairly hard-hitting reporter, and I found his show entertaining. But that changed over the years, and some time around 2005 or 2006 I found myself turning away from his show as he started leaning away from news and pushing more extremist commentary. While my views fall mildly to the right-of-center concerning the criminal immigrant community, I found his faux-populist outrage at the criminal immigrants just way too far beyond the pale for me to stomach.

Then again, CNN has not exactly been very watchable recently. It's not so much as a liberal-to-conservative balance sort of thing for me, as many others like to frame it. Rather, it's a matter of newsworthiness. CNN has just plain gotten "fluffier" over the years, turning away from the hard-hitting journalism in favor of lightweight populist stories, trading up meat-and-potatoes reporting for popcorn and cotton candy. Gone are the days when I could put the TV on CNN in the background at home for a few hours while I work on something else, although it's not like MSNBC or Headline "The Gossip Channel" News or the Fox Opinion Network are any better. I wonder whether it's more a matter of the "news" landscape changing to reflect the viewing choices the general public are making, or whether my personal viewing habits have changed over the years. Or maybe a little of both.

I'm not defending Dobbs. But your assertion that anyone who does not prescribe to the CNN verson of left-leaning journalism is a rabble-rousing lout - is aprehensible.

LOL David Gergen, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie and Ed Rollins are bleeding heart Liebruls. Please show the example at Faux News...

"CNN has just plain gotten 'fluffier' over the years, turning away from the hard-hitting journalism in favor of lightweight populist stories, trading up meat-and-potatoes reporting for popcorn and cotton candy."

It has retained its lefty "Clearly Not Neutral" nature, of course. That's despite joining most of the rest of the crowd in getting past the Obama honeymoon swoon. (Earlier this year, the puppy love at CNN over Obama was palpable as well as visible and audible. It was particuarly stupid to see someone as old and "wise" as David Gergen gush about "how a r t i c u l a t e Obama is" and all the other idiocy.)

I've noticed CNN dumb down and trivialize its material even over the past few months. Now it features not only the stupid gimmick fillers featuring Twitter feeds and e-mail and I-Report video clips, but it is so cheap and lightweight it routinely relies on earlier-in-the-day broadcast clips from CNN and from other media sources when "discussing" current news stories on prime time. Add to that the stupid sound effects and graphics and other gimmicks like the "magic wall" with touch-screen stuff and then the dumbing-down and childishness of the behavior of people on the air, and what respect does it retain, much less earn, other than simply being acknowledged as a default "news" source merely because it's one of the networks, and so it exists, claiming little else for credit?

"CNN has not exactly been very watchable recently"

The networks, not only the newspapers, have been suffering. To a great extent it's not only a mainstream rejection of continued liberal journalism-community bias, but also rejection of lightweight and worse programming (the reason so many of us haven't watched television as a rule, and especially prime time sitcoms and other "programming," or sports programming, etc., for decades). Added to the problems the networks are creating for themselves (degrading their performance as well as exhibiting liberal bias and "crusader journalism" propaganda), are that the Internet offers speed and timeliness.

Television? [yawn] You can check the news of the moment, at any time, on the Internet. And you can remove so much of the noise from the news factual "signal" by simply listening to the radio, which along with books is far from obsolete (only to the most contemporary people who are also the most inept).