Lou Dobbs could teach cable news opinionators a lesson

...on how to personally address outside critics on-air. A certain Fox News host often takes the O'Reillyian path of bashing and smearing, while Lou took a more rational, reasoned approach on Tuesday's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

A few personal notes now, if I may. About a column in "The Philadelphia Inquirer," with this question, as its lead, "Will China's decision to unpeg its currency to the U.S. dollar make Lou Dobbs shut up?" Written by a nasty piece of business by the name of Andrew Cassel, who calls me pompous, portly and a protectionist.

First, let me answer Cassel's question. No, it won't. By the way, Andrew, bad timing. The People's Bank of China now says that two percent revaluation is a one-time deal. Now, we'll see whether that turns out to be the truth, but either way, it ain't enough. Nor will it be. To salve our projected $170 billion deficit this year with china. And Treasury Secretary John Snow, who hails this revaluation, can't say with any specificity at all what U.S. exports to China could possibly benefit.

And Andrew complains that with my ever-report on this broadcast interview and commentary, that I bash China and demand that America get tough with China. No bashing, Andrew, unless you consider my reference to China as a communist authoritarian nation as bashing. I notice, instead, you call China quote, "A country with one-party rule, a weak legal system, poor environmental record, and so on." End quote.

As to get tough, Andrew, guilty as charged. If we don't demand a reciprocal trade relationship with China, there is absolutely no limit to our potential deficit. I want expanded U.S. trade with China, it's just that I prefer the Chinese balance the relationship with purchases of U.S. products and services. Andrew, that is called balanced trade, not protectionism.

And, Andrew, you and your ilk are nothing more or less than corporate supremacists, and your mindless faith-based understanding of economics is what got this country in this mess in the first place. Now, I'll leave the portly discussion, if I may, for another day.

Does Dobbs "bash" this critic? Sure, but he does it with respect, with good humor, and with valid retorts to Cassel's criticisms.

So with that, here are some tips O'Reilly (and other self-concerned TV-news personalities) could use when addressing criticism of themselves on-air.

--> address the substance of the criticism. Point out why the critic is wrong, not why you think people shouldn't like them.

--> be calm and mild-mannered, not bombastic and obnoxiously fierce.

--> don't resort to labels (ie. "far-left", "leftist", "scum")

--> use humor, not hatred.

Of course, Lou isn't perfect, calling the critic "nasty", a "corporate supremacist" with a "mindless" understanding of economics. But then again, this critic called Lou "pompous" and "portly". Fighting fire with fire, not fire with smears and stupidity (the latter being the O'Reillyian method).

Note: Here's the "nasty" Andrew Cassel column Lou was responding to.

As a side note, Dobbs viewers likely know that he's replaced his end-of-show corporate crime "countdown" with one tracking the days Judith Miller has spent in jail. It seems that in Dobbs' eyes, Miller is some sort of journalistic martyr who has been severely wronged. I'd like to recommend that Lou have a look at why Judith Miller is in jail. She's not in jail for being a whistleblower. She's in jail because she's protecting a criminal, because she wouldn't comply with a federal criminal investigation. If there's a journalist to honor at the end of every episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight, it's not Judith Miller.