On The Media

Well I have to give you credit Bob, and that pains me so. Broadcasting this verbal knife fight again shows a strong sense of self on your part. Too bad Lou brought a gun! I would be too embarrassed after such a thorough thrashing.

It was great to hear it again, especially the affected way you say O'Reilly. Good to see your Fox envy hasn't lost its vigor after so many years. Thanks for the memories.

Jack, your confusion is understandable. If you watch a lot of Fox News, you might get the impression that goading Mr. Dobbs into speaking intelligently would represent an unsuccessful interview, but in much of the rest of the of the world, getting your subject to say interesting and thought provoking things is the mark of a successful interview. On Fox News, of course, when someone with an opposing view starts to speak intelligently, Bill O'Reilly turns off his microphone.

Bob was taking a big risk by being so confrontational, but it paid off. If Mr. Dobbs had clammed up, it would have an interview all about Bob Garfield and his opinion. On Fox News, that sort thing is the standard fare, but it's considered predidn't let that stand in the way of I found Lou Dobbs more thoughtful and intelligent than I'd previously believed.tty disgraceful here on NPR.. Bob not only got Lou Dobbs to speak thoughtfully and engagingly, but about exactly what I most wanted him to speak on.

It's obvious that Bob isn't a fan, and neither am I, but I enjoyed getting a richer sense of the man. Bob Garfield was the one who gave that to me , and in REAL journalism, that's what success is. As interviews go, I think it was a classic.. but I DON'T watch Fox News, so I may be biased.

Ouch. That last post edited... by no one.

Bob was taking a big risk by being so confrontational, but it paid off. If Mr. Dobbs had clammed up, it would have an interview all about Bob Garfield and his opinion. On Fox News, that sort thing is the standard fare, but it's considered disgraceful on NPR. Bob not only got Lou Dobbs to speak thoughtfully and engagingly, but about exactly what I most wanted him to speak on.

You know, I don't think that was me. The Internet seems to be acting up.

I

And Dobbs claims he isn't racist, nativist, or anti-immigration? PLEASE!

I hope he does consider running for higher office. Imagine a contest where Dobbs, Palin, Bachmann, and Ron Paul are vying for the top spot. Add in Newt, Rick Perry, Santorum, and, well, you get the idea.

We should welcome this as an entertaining respite from our economic woes. I might have to break down and buy a television.

@Glenn It's amusing how much credit you're inclined to give Bob and yourself. First of all, it takes little skill at all to get Dobbs to talk intelligently; too bad Bob can't play at the same level. Secondly, Bob is confrontational and his judgemental questions are completely ineffective as Dobbs remains thoughtful and logical throughout the interview. Bob should take a deeper look into his own monomania. I'm trying to figure out who is his Moby Dick? He flails equally unsucessfully at Fox and Comcast.

It's clear who you're a fan of and that you equate intelligence with supporting your viewpoint. Bob's view is always evident in his interviews. I'm sure that's helpful for you.

Wow. What a moment. Everyone commenting here should read http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2007-09-01/feature2

Bob, I think Lou came off very well in that feature with one exception, that being his unscientific polls which should not be used even to gauge his own viewers.

However, given a choice of:

a) openly transparent journalist who tells me his/her biases and

b) silly lazy incompetent journalist that pretends not voting makes him/her an objective/neutral/unbiased observer/reporter,

I'll take the openly transparent journalist every time. I can gauge THEIR bias and maybe correct for it, just as I can drive a car with a bad alignment easier than I can drive a car with no functioning wheel bearings.

Another way to look at this, comparing FOX to MSNBC, FOX's problem is not they are conservative, their problem is their claim to being balanced. MSNBC's problem is ALSO its claim to be balanced, isn't it?

Based on this one example, you know that I judge the intelligence all people in all situations on the basis of how much they agree with me. And how do you arrive at this insight in my character? I think it's based on the fact that I don't agree with you. Freaky, huh?

You're saying that I have a bias? "Bias" has become the great dodge of the Right, a way to talk about something besides the facts. Go to "media matters" and you'll see documentation of untruths, real honest to god fictions sold on the air by hannity and limbaugh. Go to Newsbusters, and it's all about how Katie Couric is mean to Sarah Palin. You can always prove bias because bias proves nothing.

I love hyocrisy in action. For someone who doesn't watch Fox you have a lot of critical opinions about it; seems intellectually dishonest. It also makes me question the basis of your factfree diabtribe; seems like the left can play the same game. You might feel more balanced if you recognized that.

"I love hypocrisy in action."

Clearly.

Heh heh, Sorry. Now I'm just messing with you for the sake of messing with you. That's not honorable, but I can't think of another reason to continue this.

My criticism of Fox News is intellectually dishonest.

My criticism of Fox News is intellectually dishonest.

My criticism of Fox News is intellectually dishonest.

I'm just letting that sink in.

Look, you're pretty much just engaging in personal attacks on my integrity. Go tell someone else what you think of me, because I don't care. This is just another internet p***ing contest, and I'll all out of p***. I guess that means you win.

Dobbs didn’t help himself by defending what are obviously “leading” surveys. I think Garfield was right in calling them “push surveys”. On the other hand, the only time I’ve seen Garfield really go after a guest is when the guest is conservative. What’s needed is an On the Media show on On the Media., but I suppose it’s not a great mystery that OTM has taken sides.

These cable programs are generally up front in their biases. Obermann on the left, Dobbs on the right – at least on an issue by issue basis. Inotherwords, they’re clear that they’re advocating a position. On the other hand, most others aren’t so honest. NY Times, CBS and NPR talk about their objectivity, but by topic and guest selection, as well as how they treat an issue, it’s pretty obvious they’re biased.

In media, what is intellectually dishonest is pretending one has no biases. Accusing Bob, as an obviously opinionated journalist, of claiming objectivity because his program is one of many NPR carries is as ludicrous as claiming Moyers claims no biases because he is on PBS. He was a Democratic Presidential advisor!

While no fan of it, I always made a point of checking on Fox News, though never any of Jack's favorites such as Hannity or O'Reilly, just their lower tier people. It is important to know what those with whom one disagrees say, if not think. Almost never missed Firing Line though I celebrated Buckley's demise here.

Another form of dishonesty was evident in Chicago's submissions here but Fox's is ascertainable through myriad objective reports in so-called main stream media and, even more damning, legitimate polls on the results of their misinformation on their viewers.

As for Dobbs; well, since he was the worst element in a lousy news source, rivaling MSNBC despite how often I was forced to agree with their editorializing, all I can say is an echo. Good riddance!