(Breaking)Lou Dobbs is qutting CNN

[Mr Bean]

I got 5$ says FOX hired him away

Update: Lou Dobbs to Quit CNN
By BRIAN STELTER AND BILL CARTER
Lou Dobbs at the anchor desk at CNN's New York studio in 2006. Robert Caplin for The New York Times Lou Dobbs at the anchor desk at CNN’s New York studio in 2006.

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views have made him a TV lightning rod, plans to announce Wednesday that he is leaving the network, two network employees said.

A CNN executive confirmed that Mr. Dobbs will announce his resignation plans on his 7 p.m. program. His resignation is effective immediately; tonight’s program will be his last on CNN. His contract was not set to expire until the end of 2011.

Mr. Dobbs informed his staff members of his intentions in a meeting Wednesday afternoon. He did not immediately respond to a telephone call seeking comment.

Well known for his political positions, Mr. Dobbs is an outlier at CNN, which has sought to position itself as a middle ground of sorts in the fractious cable news arena. Perhaps hinting at plans for an exit from CNN, Mr. Dobbs met with Roger Ailes, the chairman of the Fox News Channel, last month. At the time Mr. Dobbs was viewed as a potential hire for the Fox Business Network.

A Fox spokesperson said Wednesday, “We have not had any discussions with Lou Dobbs for Fox News or Fox Business.”

The CNN employees said Wednesday that they did not know if Mr. Dobbs was moving to another network. He has placed new emphasis in recent months on his afternoon radio show, which debuted in March 2008.

Last month the New Jersey State Police were called to Mr. Dobbs home to investigate a report of gunfire. Mr. Dobbs suggested that his family had been singled out because of his views on illegal immigration and border security.

I'll note Mr Dobbs show is on in just a few minutes and he's supposed to make the announcement tonight so if it is true we will know in under an hour.

[The Romulan Republic]

CNN will still be pathetic either way.

And yes, if he switches networks it'll probably be to Fox.

[Pelranius]

CNN will still be pathetic either way.

And yes, if he switches networks it'll probably be to Fox.

And Beck and O-Reilly will probably escalate their rhetoric to overshadow Mr. Dobbs.

[Mr Bean]

It's confirmed, it's confirmed Lou Dobb's is out of there

Media matter's response

Under Pressure, Controversial Host Announces Immediate Departure


Washington, DC - Media Matters for America released the following statement responding to late breaking news that controversial CNN host Lou Dobbs, best known for his relentless anti-immigrant rhetoric, will be leaving his long-time cable news home effective tonight.

"For too long, CNN provided Lou Dobbs with its stamp of approval as he pursued a dangerous, one-sided and all too often false conspiracy tinged crusade against immigrants," said Eric Burns, president of Media Matters. "This is a happy day for all those who care about this nation of immigrants and believe in the power of media to elevate the political discourse."

[Dalton]

No chance MSNBC is picking this guy up, on both sides - not with the bashing that he gets from Keith Olbermann. He'll be another right-wing blowhard refugee who, cut loose from their network, gravitate towards the Fox News mothership. It's only a matter of time before they nail him up on the primetime rundown.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think its quite possible that he'll move to Fox, but having seen John Stewart's take on his goodbye speech, I'm not sure that's where he's going. Dobbs seemed kind of vague (as Stewart was quick to point out) on his reasons for leaving and what he would do now, but it sounded to me very much like the sort of speech he might make if he was considering running for office.

I can't prove it, but I have a nasty gut feeling Dobbs is running for office in 2010.

[Jeremy]

I don't know if he actually believed anything he said but he managed to hit all the nails.


I will only watch Fox if they retire Beck, get rid of either Hannity or O'Reilly, and bring in Dobbs and Colmes.

Their worst, however, is their morning crew--who should all be fired.

[darthdavid]

I don't know if he actually believed anything he said but he managed to hit all the nails.


I will only watch Fox if they retire Beck, get rid of either Hannity or O'Reilly, and bring in Dobbs and Colmes.

Their worst, however, is their morning crew--who should all be fired.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Fox's goal is to report the news and that they could be made into a proper news network merely by firing anchors.

This is not the case, Fox News exists to serve up conservative propaganda loosely based on current events. When you look at the network in this light it becomes clear that all the people you think should be fired for their repugnant behavior will not be fired for acting the way they do, because they're doing exactly what their bosses want them to.

Of course at it's root you can see that the ultimate reason for this is that there's a lot of money to be made pushing a conservative agenda because a more conservative agenda helps the rich hold on to their money (and fleece more money from the population) and they're thus willing to part with a portion of their money in order to help push that agenda. Fox will never change because years of toadying for corporate conservatism has destroyed any credibility outside of their target demographic and the second they tried to start reporting reality 90% of their viewership and 99% of their corporate sponsors would jump ship.

I'm sure Dobbs would fit right in, racist, conspiracy supporting, corporate dick sucking moron that he is...

[Jeremy]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Fox's goal is to report the news and that they could be made into a proper news network merely by firing anchors.
<snip>
I'm sure Dobbs would fit right in, racist, conspiracy supporting, corporate dick sucking moron that he is...

I really don't think you give a crap about what my impressions are...
...but here they are.

Dobbs is a salesman, just like Mike Savage, just like any talk show host. They are able to successfully market their products to their respective customers. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are bad at selling their products to me. I feel less intelligent and lose pride in the movement after listening to Beck, but the exact opposite after listening to Dobbs. I mentioned Alan Colmes, I like him (or at least what he has portrayed himself as), and I would be willing to buy (endure advertisements) his product (the way he present news and "liberal" ideology) over that of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck who are so bad that they can't even sell me a product I should want.

I detest the Fox morning crew anchors: they are not funny, they are not enlightening, they are not cultured, they are elitist, and they do a terrible job at "advancing the movement". I reckon those indictments can be made of most morning show anchors but I find these people especially unworthy of my money (time).

Fox News exists to serve up conservative propaganda loosely based on current events.

Whatever dish Fox may serve up, this dish is too greasy for me. I find their brand of entertainment too leftist for my taste.

Of course at it's root you can see that the ultimate reason for this is that there's a lot of money to be made pushing a conservative agenda because a more conservative agenda helps the rich hold on to their money (and fleece more money from the population)

It is my distinct impression that the liberal factions of the Western World have a significant funding base of financially impressive persons and organizations. Everyone "fleeces the population for more money", that is Human nature--or what do you call the bell ringing Salvation Army?

[bobalot]

Of course at it's root you can see that the ultimate reason for this is that there's a lot of money to be made pushing a conservative agenda because a more conservative agenda helps the rich hold on to their money (and fleece more money from the population)

It is my distinct impression that the liberal factions of the Western World have a significant funding base of financially impressive persons and organizations. Everyone "fleeces the population for more money", that is Human nature--or what do you call the bell ringing Salvation Army?

Are you implying there are Liberal TV networks that distort the news as much as Fox does? Please name a few and post examples.

[darthdavid]

If you honestly can't see how a corporatist propaganda network that receives funding from corporations in order to convince the stupidest part of the country to act against their own interests in such a way that the corporations doing the funding (and in particular the people at the helms of those corporations) make more money (by loosening regulations designed to protect consumers, creating new tax loop-holes and removing corporate liability for harming individuals, the environment and anything else they damn well please as they chase every last fucking blood soaked cent) might just, possibly, maybe, be a fucking problem then you're clearly too stupid to live and I'm amazed you can breathe on your own much less operate your computer or read at a level sufficient to allow you to respond to threads on a bulletin board.

At this juncture I must come to the conclusion then, that you're either a troll of massive proportions or a fucking moron. So which is it douchebag, are you a troll or an idiot? We're waiting...

[Lagmonster]

No fucking dogpiling. This is the only pre-emptive warning anyone will get.

[Dalton]

If you honestly can't see how a corporatist propaganda network that receives funding from corporations in order to convince the stupidest part of the country to act against their own interests in such a way that the corporations doing the funding (and in particular the people at the helms of those corporations) make more money (by loosening regulations designed to protect consumers, creating new tax loop-holes and removing corporate liability for harming individuals, the environment and anything else they damn well please as they chase every last fucking blood soaked cent) might just, possibly, maybe, be a fucking problem then you're clearly too stupid to live and I'm amazed you can breathe on your own much less operate your computer or read at a level sufficient to allow you to respond to threads on a bulletin board.

At this juncture I must come to the conclusion then, that you're either a troll of massive proportions or a fucking moron. So which is it douchebag, are you a troll or an idiot? We're waiting...

You're waiting, dummy. Jeremy's post warrants discussion, but this sort of baseless Ad Hominem is really pointless and stupid.

[Jeremy]

It is my distinct impression that the liberal factions of the Western World have a significant funding base of financially impressive persons and organizations. Everyone "fleeces the population for more money", that is Human nature--or what do you call the bell ringing Salvation Army?

Are you implying there are Liberal TV networks that distort the news as much as Fox does? Please name a few and post examples.

I did not imply that or address it. I implied that both sides of the political spectrum had wealthy constituent persons, businesses, and foundations financially backing them. I also implied that any political movement is likely to work to the financial advantage of its major fiscal contributors.

If you honestly can't see how a corporatist propaganda network that receives funding from corporations in order to convince the stupidest part of the country to act against their own interests ... might just, possibly, maybe, be a fucking problem

When I hike I try to leave the nature trail a little better than it was when I arrived. I think entertainment should do the same to its consumers. I feel less cultured, less educated, and less rational after watching the current programming of Fox, that is one of the reasons I do not currently watch Fox.

It is a problem though, and that is another reason I don't watch Fox, because the ideology they currently push just doesn't square with what I think is best for people. For example, an Italian monarchist would not read a syndicalist broadsheet for the news.

[bobalot]

It is my distinct impression that the liberal factions of the Western World have a significant funding base of financially impressive persons and organizations. Everyone "fleeces the population for more money", that is Human nature--or what do you call the bell ringing Salvation Army?

Are you implying there are Liberal TV networks that distort the news as much as Fox does? Please name a few and post examples.

I did not imply that or address it. I implied that both sides of the political spectrum had wealthy constituent persons, businesses, and foundations financially backing them. I also implied that any political movement is likely to work to the financial advantage of its major fiscal contributors.

Every network targets a particular audience. The reason why people take such issue with Fox is the shameless extent they go to. Lies and "news" bordering on propaganda is unethical and deserves contempt. All because there is a market for it is irrelevant. I'm not sure what exactly is the point of your post. No one here denies there is a market for Fox News.

[jcow79]

I really don't think you give a crap about what my impressions are...
...but here they are.

Dobbs is a salesman, just like Mike Savage, just like any talk show host. They are able to successfully market their products to their respective customers. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are bad at selling their products to me. I feel less intelligent and lose pride in the movement after listening to Beck, but the exact opposite after listening to Dobbs. I mentioned Alan Colmes, I like him (or at least what he has portrayed himself as), and I would be willing to buy (endure advertisements) his product (the way he present news and "liberal" ideology) over that of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck who are so bad that they can't even sell me a product I should want.

I detest the Fox morning crew anchors: they are not funny, they are not enlightening, they are not cultured, they are elitist, and they do a terrible job at "advancing the movement". I reckon those indictments can be made of most morning show anchors but I find these people especially unworthy of my money (time).

Whatever dish Fox may serve up, this dish is too greasy for me. I find their brand of entertainment too leftist for my taste.

It is my distinct impression that the liberal factions of the Western World have a significant funding base of financially impressive persons and organizations. Everyone "fleeces the population for more money", that is Human nature--or what do you call the bell ringing Salvation Army?

Why would you compare Dobbs with Michael Savage as a "salesman"? Isn't he the hate-spewing, banned from the U.K., racist, bigoted shit stain that was fired from MSNBC for his abhorrent anti-gay tirade he went on? I would question anyone that listens to Savage other than to induce vomiting in a poisoning emergency. So if Dobbs gives you pride in the movement is Savage doing the same for you?

And when you called Fox news "leftist" was that an error?

[The Spartan]

And when you called Fox news "leftist" was that an error?

I'm pretty sure he's not calling Fox News leftist. He's calling Fox (i.e. the channel that broadcasts the Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, etc.) leftist.

They're both owned by the same company but broadcast different programming.

[jcow79]

And when you called Fox news "leftist" was that an error?

I'm pretty sure he's not calling Fox News leftist. He's calling Fox (i.e. the channel that broadcasts the Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, etc.) leftist.

They're both owned by the same company but broadcast different programming.

I considered that after posting but his comment was in direct reply to a comment about Fox News and Fox News is clearly more entertainment than news so I thought I would let the question stand.

[Jeremy]

I'm pretty sure he's not calling Fox News leftist. He's calling Fox (i.e. the channel that broadcasts the Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, etc.) leftist.

They're both owned by the same company but broadcast different programming.

I meant the Fox News channel was too leftist for my tastes. jcow79 summed up the entertainment/news fairly accurately. I quite enjoy the above mentioned cartoons though.

I'm not sure what exactly is the point of your post.

If Fox News was slightly less Fox News, I would watch it.

Why would you compare Dobbs with Michael Savage as a "salesman"? Isn't he the hate-spewing, banned from the U.K., racist, bigoted shit stain that was fired from MSNBC for his abhorrent anti-gay tirade he went on? I would question anyone that listens to Savage other than to induce vomiting in a poisoning emergency. So if Dobbs gives you pride in the movement is Savage doing the same for you?

Yes, Michael was banned from the UK. I chose Michael because I don't think he believes in what he says but has figured out his market perfectly--making a decent living off of them. No, Michael doesn't give me pride.

[The Spartan]

I meant the Fox News channel was too leftist for my tastes. jcow79 summed up the entertainment/news fairly accurately. I quite enjoy the above mentioned cartoons though.

You're trolling aren't you? There not even remotely "leftist". They're so far rightist that they've ventured into batshit crazy territory.

I... I mean.... really? Are you out of your fucking mind? If they were any further right they'd be goose stepping around the studio during broadcasts.

[darthdavid]

If you honestly can't see how a corporatist propaganda network that receives funding from corporations in order to convince the stupidest part of the country to act against their own interests in such a way that the corporations doing the funding (and in particular the people at the helms of those corporations) make more money (by loosening regulations designed to protect consumers, creating new tax loop-holes and removing corporate liability for harming individuals, the environment and anything else they damn well please as they chase every last fucking blood soaked cent) might just, possibly, maybe, be a fucking problem then you're clearly too stupid to live and I'm amazed you can breathe on your own much less operate your computer or read at a level sufficient to allow you to respond to threads on a bulletin board.

At this juncture I must come to the conclusion then, that you're either a troll of massive proportions or a fucking moron. So which is it douchebag, are you a troll or an idiot? We're waiting...

You're waiting, dummy. Jeremy's post warrants discussion, but this sort of baseless Ad Hominem is really pointless and stupid.

Are you living in bizarro land or something? He's saying that Fox News is too far to the left. If that's not the sign of a troll or someone who's severely out of touch with reality I don't know what the fuck would be.

BTW: Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Has this changed? Because unless it has I don't think I did anything wrong there...

[Dalton]

Are you living in bizarro land or something? He's saying that Fox News is too far to the left. If that's not the sign of a troll or someone who's severely out of touch with reality I don't know what the fuck would be.

"If you believe X, then you are Y" is an Ad Hominem, plain and simple. You should have no problem attacking his argument, but you instead chose to attack him. By doing so you are saying that his statement is wrong because of his beliefs.

BTW: Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Has this changed? Because unless it has I don't think I did anything wrong there...

Do not presume to quote the board slogan to me as if it was policy. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? Need I remind you?

No Lawyering. These rules are here to tell you what you can and can't do, but they do not define "rights" which you can throw in the faces of the staff if they agree that you've done something wrong. We have clarified rules or even added retroactive rules in the past (eg- the harassment rule) due to certain peoples' actions, and we are quite willing to do so again. In other words, this is not a court of law. Don't nitpick semantics or look for legal loopholes.

[Lagmonster]

I meant the Fox News channel was too leftist for my tastes. jcow79 summed up the entertainment/news fairly accurately. I quite enjoy the above mentioned cartoons though.

You're trolling aren't you? There not even remotely "leftist". They're so far rightist that they've ventured into batshit crazy territory.

I... I mean.... really? Are you out of your fucking mind? If they were any further right they'd be goose stepping around the studio during broadcasts.

I expect our members to come up with better posting habits than this. He said that Fox News is to far left for him, implying that he himself is either extremely right-wing or, otherwise, grossly misunderstands Fox News content. Either way, questions first; Veiled accusations of trolling and nazism never.

On that note, Jeremy, please clarify: Do you consider Fox News to be left of centre, or merely 'more left than you'? If the former, by what standards do you consider Fox News to be left of centre? If the latter, how far to the right do you consider yourself (naturally, you don't *have* to answer that)?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I meant the Fox News channel was too leftist for my tastes. jcow79 summed up the entertainment/news fairly accurately. I quite enjoy the above mentioned cartoons though.

You're trolling aren't you? There not even remotely "leftist". They're so far rightist that they've ventured into batshit crazy territory.

I... I mean.... really? Are you out of your fucking mind? If they were any further right they'd be goose stepping around the studio during broadcasts.

To be fair, fascism is marked by its extreme hostility to both ends of the left-right spectrum. The fascist's social views tend towards the authoritarian (what we commonly attribute to the "right-wing"; though those with libertarian bent would accuse fascists of being radical leftists because fascism explicitly endorses authoritarian/totalitarian forms of government) end of the spectrum, but their economic policies (explicitly hostile towards free-market capitalism) put them, at least, in the fiscal/economic center, if not off to the left.

So if someone whose ideal of government is a libertarian one; then, by that standard, Fox News is too leftist. It could also be too "leftist" because it doesn't go far enough in advocating neoconservatism. The correct question to ask would be "Which one of these yardsticks is he using to evaluate Fox News' political leanings?"

[The Spartan]

Thanks for the refresher GMT. I saw Fox News and leftist in the same sentence, something I don't even hear in Texas from the craziest of loons and it blew my mind enough that I ended up going off half-cocked. Sorry, guys.