CBS's Lesley Stahl, in a 60 Minutes profile of CNN's Lou Dobbs aired Sunday night, expressed indignation over how Dobbs violates the supposed “fair and balanced” rule of journalism by revealing his disdain for President Bush, but Stahl has a long history of announcing her personal political views, including scorn for President Reagan and adulation of Hillary Clinton.
When Dobbs confirmed he's “not a fan” of Bush -- “No, I'm not. Whether it’s outsourcing, the war in Iraq, just disregard for our middle class” -- Stahl jumped in: “I'm sitting here saying to myself, 'This man runs a news show?' And you can just tell me you don’t like the President. Woo.” Yes, she really said “woo.” Dobbs explained: “I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from.” To which Stahl, an advocacy journalist long before Dobbs (see this 1991 MediaWatch critique), wondered: “What about fair and balanced?”
Back in January of 1989, when Reagan was still in office, Stahl told NBC's Bob Costas: “I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man [Ronald Reagan] and followed him the way we did.” Five years later, on the old America's Talking cable channel, in an interview with Roger Ailes, she was appalled by how people were fooled by Reagan: “Here's a guy who fooled most of the people most of the time....He was a person who didn't understand the issues at all, and we know that for a fact....It's scary, because he led us off in the wrong direction.”
Days after Reagan died in 2004, on CNN'sLarry King Live, her 60 Minutes colleague Mike Wallace was curious about “when was the last time we had a President Americans loved?” Stahl doused the admiration of Reagan: “And of course, not all Americans loved him, Mike.”
Stahl hasn't hesitated to hail Hillary Clinton. In 1999, Philadelphia Inquirer TV columnist Gail Shister relayed how, “when it comes to Hillary Clinton, CBS's Lesley Stahl makes no pretense of objectivity.” Indeed, the former White House reporter told Shister: “I'm endlessly fascinated by her...She's so smart. Virtually every time I've seen her perform, she has knocked my socks off.”
Humorously, in a January of 2000 interview with FNC's Bill O'Reilly, Stahl insisted: “I had my opinions surgically removed when I became a network correspondent.”
And Stahl hardly showed much respect for President Bush in a 2004 interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews in which she asserted that “we all suppose and assume” that Vice President Cheney “is sitting in the room and kind of hand-signaling to the President about what he's supposed to do.”
From the end of the May 6 60 Minutes piece on Dobbs:
Lesley Stahl: “Given his family [married to a Mexican-American], the crusade against illegal immigrants may seem like a disconnect. But Lou is full of contradictions: he’s pro-abortion rights, but against gun control; a fiscal conservative who supports government regulation. He was a registered Republican.”
Stahl to Lou Dobbs: “George Bush, not a fan?”
Dobbs: "No, I'm not. Whether it’s outsourcing, the war in Iraq, just disregard for our middle class. I cannot-"
Stahl: “I'm sitting here saying to myself, 'This man runs a news show?'”
Dobbs: “I do.”
Stahl: “And you can just tell me you don’t like the President. Woo."
Dobbs: "I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from."
Stahl: "What about fair and balanced?"
Dobbs: "I've never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I’ve found it to be-”
Stahl: “But, that’s, but wait, what’s the definition of 'journalism?' That that's in there. That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced."
Dobbs: "I truly believe there’s a non-partisan, independent reality."
Stahl: "But, it’s your reality."
Dobbs: "It is my reality."
Stahl: "But, it’s not 'the' reality."
Dobbs: "Well, how so?"
Stahl: “Dobbs scoffs at suggestions that his 'advocacy' tarnishes his credentials as a journalist.”
Dobbs: "The idea that a reporter should be disqualified because he or she actually cares, actually isn't neutral about the well-being of the country and its people, that’s absurd."
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Are you allowed to say the wo
May 7, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Gat New YorkAre you allowed to say the word woo on television?
With all due respect to Lesli
May 7, 2007 - 09:22 ET by Gat New YorkWith all due respect to Leslie Stahl she was probably confused regarding fair and balanced.
Dobbs is CNN - not FoxNews.
hypocritical
May 7, 2007 - 09:25 ET by misterbillhypocritical b!tch-- I was surprised when Dobbs did not put her in her place. What a flaming hypocrite!
Where’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land? Sir Walter Scott
And the parent that wouldn't be honored by the sacrifice? Noel Sheppard
I guess that it's much more
May 7, 2007 - 09:51 ET by thomasrhallI guess that it's much more "professional" to detest the president without stating so upfront. This gives CBS
in general and 60 Minutes in particular cover while feeding the public a constant stream of negative stories
about the administration.
I saw this piece last night a
May 7, 2007 - 11:06 ET by SouthJersey1953I saw this piece last night and laughed out loud at the hypocricy of mop-head Leslie. I was, at first, surprised and disappointed that Lou did not call her out on the hypocricy, but then I relaized that he might of, but that footage was laying on the cutting room floor.
Still, I cannot believe the nerve of mop-head Lesie to even be able to make the accusations with a stright face!
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think." - Milton Berle
They are both wrong. Stahl fo
May 7, 2007 - 09:43 ET by zfThey are both wrong. Stahl for being a hypocrite and Dobbs for confusing caring about the country with using that concern to push an agenda and interpret (and misintepret) facts to suit his own biases and non-objective opinions. If you're on a pundit show that's one thing, if you're on a pure news show it's another.
That said, I'm suprised that Brent used the word "supposed" to describe the fair and balanced rule of journalism. That's not a rule, insomuch it's supposed to be what journalism is. The whole premise of this site is that the news isn't fair or balanced and currently the tilt is to the left and this needs to be documented and combated. The use of "supposed" and the quotations marks around fair and balanced is somewhat strange and offputting.
"Non-partisan reality&qu
May 7, 2007 - 09:54 ET by zf"Non-partisan reality" must mean exactly whatever Lou Dobbs believes it means. Hating the President must not qualify as "partisan" in Dobbsland.
As much as I loathe 60 minu
May 7, 2007 - 10:03 ET by bobthemanAs much as I loathe 60 minutes, I happen to be watching since I was waiting for the Soprano's.... in any event...
...what was even more astounding IMO, was the answer he gave on his fact
checking regarding the rate of increase in leprosy in the last 3 or 30
years... depending on who you listen to.
Dobbs claimed 7000 new cases in the last 3 years... with no verifiable truth... Stahl found a document claiming 7000 in the last 30 years... she challenged him on it...
... his answer... because I'm the managing editor, my information is correct. End of Story... despite any sound, verifiable proof... pretty freakin' arrogant.
Dobbs
May 7, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Mulligan22MSM folks like Stahl don't engage in F&B but in B&S journalism. All so called news people have opinions that get into their stories.
Dobbs and Stahl, a plague o
May 7, 2007 - 10:06 ET by ChriswelLDobbs and Stahl, a plague on both their houses.
-cs™
Both Lesley Stahl and Lou Dob
May 7, 2007 - 10:11 ET by KC MulvilleBoth Lesley Stahl and Lou Dobbs stumble over the same issue. Both inject their subjectivity into their reporting, but where Stahl doesn’t recognize it, Dobbs denies it’s a problem. For each, however, the issue is objectivity.
In philosophy, “objective knowledge” is an oxymoron. Knowledge requires a knower, and by definition, that makes it subjective. You can’t eliminate the knower from the knowledge, and so objective knowledge is self-contradictory. That’s why a smart reader always takes a reporter’s piece with a grain of salt. It’s also why readers want a news market with different perspectives. In the old days of the NY Times and the Big Three networks, there were no different perspectives. Now we have a market, but the old monopoly is trying to stamp out different perspectives and return to the monopoly.
Lou Dobbs uses the same justification as Bill Moyers: he doesn’t need to present a different side of issues, because he claims to have already discovered the objective truth. He dismisses other perspectives, and often stoops to ridicule (policies that are “moronic,” etc.). He believes that his objective reporting is fueling his advocacy; instead, his advocacy is increasing the subjectivity of his reporting.
journalism
May 7, 2007 - 11:10 ET by iveseenitallWow! A "journalist" who doesn't like our president. How rare. I, personnally, don't give a rat's ass what Dobbs or Stahl thinks or likes. And I have a sneaking suspicion that most Americans don't either. I laugh at a story like this---pompous jackasses both.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Outsourcing the war? Disreg
May 7, 2007 - 11:40 ET by rimskyOutsourcing the war? Disregard for the Middle Class? Huh?
ZF you cannot think that l
May 7, 2007 - 11:57 ET by sajc05ZF
you cannot think that lou dobbs has some secret liberal agenda... he is actually a patriot cause he cares about his country FIRST before political parties. he rips repubs and dems, not just one or the other
there are to many conservatives that will blindly applaud anything bush does cause hes a republican, even though some of what he does is bad for the country and the conservative movement...
bush
-prtinting off money, borrowing billions from china. conservative?
-destroying our soveriegnty and wiping out our borders while pretending to care about border inforcement. degrading AMERICAN WORKERS by allowing the wages to deteriorate because of his open borders policies.
-he was supposed to be a washington outsider but is soo in the pocket to big business thats its sickening. gov't of the people? not anymore, gov't of the highest bidder
why aren't enough conservatives mad about this? country first party/idealogy second
i applaud dobbs for calling out bush on this bs because it hurts AMERICANS.
many more on the left blindly attack President Bush
May 7, 2007 - 12:01 ET by RJ"...there are many conservatives who will blindly applaud everything bush does..."
And there are many more on the left who suffer from BDS and will blindly attack everything President Bush does.
BTW, regarding the border and illegals, I applaud what Dobbs is doing and am disgusted by what Bush is doing
You'll have to look long and
May 7, 2007 - 14:59 ET by SouthJersey1953You'll have to look long and hard before you find a conservative that will applaud "anything Bush does..." We generally look at the actions, not the party affiliation. Unlike libs that seem to blindly follow everything the left says, even when presented with facts to contradict them.
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think." - Milton Berle
Dobbs is a patriot? Why is he
May 8, 2007 - 06:44 ET by old croDobbs is a patriot? Why is he not decrying the democrats out there trying to destroy this country?
Printing and borrowing money?
Regarding our southern border, it seems to me the president is "trying" to do what he has done his whole career in politics, that is please both sides(non-partisanship) while essentially pleasing none.
You didn't say the magic word - "Haliburton".
Why do you liberals insist on destroying our country, our way of life, and take the apples out of the pie?
Your applauding only hurts your hands, not real americans!
"My wife is a sex object. Evertime I ask for sex, she objects."
Les Dawson
Leslie Stahlin is Out of Touch
May 9, 2007 - 18:43 ET by deerjerkydaveStahl said, "And of course, not all Americans loved him, Mike."
All you have to do is take a look at the electoral map of the 1984 presidential election. You cannot find me a more beloved president than Ronald Reagan. Here is a link to the map.