Fox cancels Lou Dobbs' weekday show on Fox Business Network

By Lisa Richwine

 

A Fox News channel sign is seen at the News Corporation building in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz/File Photo

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Fox Corp's Fox Business Network has canceled "Lou Dobbs Tonight," a weekday program hosted by the business journalist and vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump, the company said on Friday.

 

News of the cancellation came one day after Dobbs, 75, was named as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit filed by voting machine maker Smartmatic, which argued that three Fox hosts, including Dobbs, falsely accused the company of helping to rig the election against Trump.

 

Fox said the move to end Dobbs' show had been in the works before the lawsuit as part of a revamp following the November U.S. presidential election in which Republican Trump was defeated by Democrat Joe Biden.

 

"As we said in October, Fox News Media regularly considers programming changes and plans have been in place to launch new formats as appropriate post-election, including on Fox Business," a Fox News Media spokesperson said. "This is part of those planned changes."

 

On the Smartmatic lawsuit, Fox said on Thursday the network was "proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this meritless lawsuit in court."

 

Dobbs, reached by text message on Friday, said he had no comment.

 

The cancellation of Dobbs' show was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, which said the anchor was unlikely to appear on Fox channels again even though he remains under contract.

 

Trump issued a statement praising Dobbs on Friday evening.

 

"Lou Dobbs is and was great," Trump said in an emailed statement. "Nobody loves America more than Lou. He had a large and loyal following that will be watching closely for his next move, and that following includes me."

 

Dobbs' show ran at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern time on Fox Business Network, and he appeared at times as a commentator on Fox News Channel.

 

Starting Monday, the 5 p.m. show will be called "Fox Business Tonight," and be repeated at 7 p.m.

 

In January, Fox announced that Larry Kudlow, a former top economic adviser to Trump, would be hosting a new weekday show on the Fox Business Network.

 

It also launched a new opinion show at 7 p.m. on Fox News.

 

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-06

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Would this be Murdoch attempting limited damage control?

I remember decades ago when Lou Dobbs was a pretty good commentator.  Seeing him recently has really lowered my level of confidence in the guy.  So I'm not sad to see him leave.

 

But the reason behind his departure worries me.  All you have to do if you don't like what a commentator says about you or your company is to sue his network for $$ billions, and poof.  He goes away.

 

That's a scary precedent for journalism and the 4th Estate.  Even if you don't agree with the guy.

 

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

I remember decades ago when Lou Dobbs was a pretty good commentator.  Seeing him recently has really lowered my level of confidence in the guy.  So I'm not sad to see him leave.

 

But the reason behind his departure worries me.  All you have to do if you don't like what a commentator says about you or your company is to sue his network for $$ billions, and poof.  He goes away.

 

That's a scary precedent for journalism and the 4th Estate.  Even if you don't agree with the guy.

 

The dude knowing lied, repeatedly, even after being told what he was saying was utter bs, 

 

That is not journalism.

1 minute ago, PremiumLane said:

The dude knowing lied, repeatedly, even after being told what he was saying was utter bs, 

 

That is not journalism.

 

Let's see what happens in Maricopa County before we decide if he lied.

 

35 minutes ago, impulse said:

I remember decades ago when Lou Dobbs was a pretty good commentator.  Seeing him recently has really lowered my level of confidence in the guy.  So I'm not sad to see him leave.

 

But the reason behind his departure worries me.  All you have to do if you don't like what a commentator says about you or your company is to sue his network for $$ billions, and poof.  He goes away.

 

That's a scary precedent for journalism and the 4th Estate.  Even if you don't agree with the guy.

 

Only if your sue has merit. Don't you think Fox consulted with their lawyers first? 

Ok. I didnt watch mainstream propaganda for around 50 years and never heard his name either.

And maybe I miss something.

1 minute ago, olfu said:

Ok. I didnt watch mainstream propaganda for around 50 years and never heard his name either.

And maybe I miss something.

 

20 years ago, yes.  Lately, he's become just like the rest of them, with opinions trumping any real analysis.

 

34 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Only if your sue has merit. Don't you think Fox consulted with their lawyers first? 

 

Anyone believe that the Dominion lawsuits will be decided on their merits?   Keep in mind they will be jury trials.

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Anyone believe that the Dominion lawsuits will be decided on their merits?   Keep in mind they will be jury trials.

Yea , many !

1 hour ago, impulse said:

I remember decades ago when Lou Dobbs was a pretty good commentator.  Seeing him recently has really lowered my level of confidence in the guy.  So I'm not sad to see him leave.

 

But the reason behind his departure worries me.  All you have to do if you don't like what a commentator says about you or your company is to sue his network for $$ billions, and poof.  He goes away.

 

That's a scary precedent for journalism and the 4th Estate.  Even if you don't agree with the guy.

 

This not about not liking what commentator says. it is about intentional lie.

 

This lady lawyer Laura Coates makes very good summary of the issue; "When you are making statements that are knowingly false, and you make them with malice, and you actually tarnish reputations and it has a financial consequence "  there are consequences. 

 

Freedom of press of expression is not the freedom to intentionally spread false information. I remember when  in USA and I would watch him. I liked him at the time, but then he make slow descent into crazy claims like the  nonsense that President Obama was not an America. It is difficult to take a man seriously when he has hair dye job like his and dribbles poo for fact. He is old guy left behind by time.

Life will go on....there will be another show, and he can count his millions...move along nothing to see....

21 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

This not about not liking what commentator says. it is about intentional lie.

 

This lady lawyer Laura Coates makes very good summary of the issue; "When you are making statements that are knowingly false, and you make them with malice, and you actually tarnish reputations and it has a financial consequence "  there are consequences. 

 

Freedom of press of expression is not the freedom to intentionally spread false information. I remember when  in USA and I would watch him. I liked him at the time, but then he make slow descent into crazy claims like the  nonsense that President Obama was not an America. It is difficult to take a man seriously when he has hair dye job like his and dribbles poo for fact. He is old guy left behind by time.

 

Where were the defamation lawsuits when NPR was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

And the NYT was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

 

And Scientific American was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabilities-of-our-voting-machines/

 

And the BBC was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45680490

 

And WIRED was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.wired.com/story/voting-machine-meltdowns-midterm-elections-2018/

 

And ABC News was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-vulnerable-experts-find-nearly-three-dozen-u-s-voting-n1112436?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

 

The most secure election in history.  Yeah, right.   Exactly what changed since 2018/2019?  

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Where were the defamation lawsuits when NPR was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines

 

And the NYT was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

 

And Scientific American was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabilities-of-our-voting-machines/

 

And the BBC was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45680490

 

And WIRED was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.wired.com/story/voting-machine-meltdowns-midterm-elections-2018/

 

And ABC News was publishing stuff like this:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-vulnerable-experts-find-nearly-three-dozen-u-s-voting-n1112436?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

 

The most secure election in history.  Yeah, right.   Exactly what changed since 2018/2019?  

Did any of these references accuse the companies supplying the machines of changing votes?

 

Or did they identify potential vulnerabilities?

 

If it is the first, there should have been lawsuits.  If the latter, no lawsuits warranted.

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Did any of these references accuse the companies supplying the machines of changing votes?

 

Or did they identify potential vulnerabilities?

 

If it is the first, there should have been lawsuits.  If the latter, no lawsuits warranted.

What if it claimed vulnerabilities that did not exist, or had evidence of?

38 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What if it claimed vulnerabilities that did not exist, or had evidence of?

That would be a legitimate reason for a lawsuit.  In fact, I'm sure if that had happened the injured company would have taken some legal action.  However that doesn't seem to be the case.

Sounds like he wanted to get side-lined, with pay. Insiders say he's been a PITA for management for a while, he has no advertisers and his "show" is losing money. Sacking him now does nothing to alleviate the lawsuits.

 

My favorite infographic...Lou Dobbs in a nut-shell...

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Anyone believe that the Dominion lawsuits will be decided on their merits?   Keep in mind they will be jury trials.

This has nothing to do with Dominion voting machines, the law suit is by Smartmatic.

16 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Let's see what happens in Maricopa County before we decide if he lied.

 

Wow. Speechless.

Lou Dobbs cancelled?

It's Christmas in February!

I will miss Lou; although, to be honest I don't watch that much Fox News or Fox business (Fox Biz before Bloomberg or CNBC, though). The thing is, Lou is 75 yrs old. He struggled for words many times and it's time for younger news people to move up. Neil Cavuto is the one that should be 'fired', but he's a SrVP, so that won't happen.

 

From what I've read the lawsuit from Smartmatic has nothing to do with the cancellation.

Oops...

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Lou Dobbs cancelled?

It's Christmas in February!

You don't watch, didn't watch Fox News or Business anyway... Why do you care??? ????????

17 hours ago, impulse said:

I remember decades ago when Lou Dobbs was a pretty good commentator.  Seeing him recently has really lowered my level of confidence in the guy.  So I'm not sad to see him leave.

 

But the reason behind his departure worries me.  All you have to do if you don't like what a commentator says about you or your company is to sue his network for $$ billions, and poof.  He goes away.

 

That's a scary precedent for journalism and the 4th Estate.  Even if you don't agree with the guy.

 

He propagated a lie with no verification of the facts because there WERE none, which degraded confidence in a multi-billion dollar international business. It's scary that this kind of trash is allowed to be poured into the brains of known gullible idiots. His lies directly contributed to the capitol attack.

 

Good bye to VERY bad rubbish.

9 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Sounds like he wanted to get side-lined, with pay. Insiders say he's been a PITA for management for a while, he has no advertisers and his "show" is losing money. Sacking him now does nothing to alleviate the lawsuits.

 

My favorite infographic...Lou Dobbs in a nut-shell...

 

 

 

 

THAT'S certainly "Fair and Balanced!"

6 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

You don't watch, didn't watch Fox News or Business anyway... Why do you care??? ????????

Lou knowingly perpetuated lies which contributed to the capitol attack. That's enough to care.

17 hours ago, impulse said:

I remember decades ago when Lou Dobbs was a pretty good commentator.  Seeing him recently has really lowered my level of confidence in the guy.  So I'm not sad to see him leave.

 

But the reason behind his departure worries me.  All you have to do if you don't like what a commentator says about you or your company is to sue his network for $$ billions, and poof.  He goes away.

 

That's a scary precedent for journalism and the 4th Estate.  Even if you don't agree with the guy.

 

There is a big difference between defamatory statements and journalistic freedom. Dobbs and many others are toppling because they spouted drivel to further their own nonsensical support for an egotistical maniac. Good riddance.

15 hours ago, mike787 said:

Life will go on....there will be another show, and he can count his millions...move along nothing to see....

unfortunately you're correct. There's enough sub intelligent folks there to promote any fool if it fits their agenda (as was just witnessed in the last 4 years)

17 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

The dude knowing lied, repeatedly, even after being told what he was saying was utter bs, 

 

That is not journalism.

Oh come on, journalist have been fabricating, exaggerating etc. for a long time, both left and right. What is different now is that if anyone says 'boo' someone else goes running to the courts. Even at home, some want so called 'hate talk' prosecuted (Sunday Times or https://gript.ie/scottish-hate-crime-bill-homes-prosecuted/, from October last year). Soon it'll be that even if one talks to oneself at home complaining about the government, wishful thinking about someone/neighbour, throwing darts at a picture of your favourite grouch personality/politician, you will feel obliged to 'turn yourself in'.

2 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Oh come on, journalist have been fabricating, exaggerating etc. for a long time, both left and right. What is different now is that if anyone says 'boo' someone else goes running to the courts. Even at home, some want so called 'hate talk' prosecuted (Sunday Times or https://gript.ie/scottish-hate-crime-bill-homes-prosecuted/, from October last year). Soon it'll be that even if one talks to oneself at home complaining about the government, wishful thinking about someone/neighbour, throwing darts at a picture of your favourite grouch personality/politician, you will feel obliged to 'turn yourself in'.

Nope. They do NOT legally fabricate. Each news outlet has its own read on an issue, but when you fabricate, you get your network sued and you get kicked to the curb. Fox has a slew of those.