Investigative Reporting

Last week, Isabel Macdonald published a controversial investigative article in The Nation titled “Lou Dobbs, American Hypocrite”. Macdonald exposes Dobbs for hiring illegal immigrants to work on his estate despite his hard-line stance on illegal immigration, using his former platform as a CNN correspondent, to demand that employers of illegal immigrants should face “felony charges”.

After various discussions we’ve held in class about investigative articles (i.e. when is going under cover appropriate?), I was especially observant of the tactics Macdonald used to uncover, and consequently write her story. Her investigation lasted no more then a year prior to its publication, featuring interviews with five former and current illegal immigrants that had one time or another worked for Dobbs.

Right off the bat, I noticed who she used for sources. The former employees of Dobbs would be first and foremost her most important source (she interviews five). Another important addition, are the “expert sources”. Vicky Moon, author of A Sunday Horse: Inside the Grand Prix Show-Jumping Circuit, provides Macdonald with excellent detailed information on the manual labor associated with horse transportation, highly relevant considering a large majority of the employees hired for this job, and specifically by Dobbs, are undocumented workers.

The second and foremost desired interview would be with Lou Dobbs himself, but he had declined to give comment until after the publication of this article. Macdonald has to resort to using second hand sources to incorporate Dobbs in her piece, which luckily was not too hard considering his long tenure with CNN and his current radio show. Macdonald does use this to her advantage citing past commentary, but I thought the examples she used could have been chosen better to give more effect to her piece.

One of those being, a remark he had given on CNN in 2007 where “he called private firms that oppose verification requirements for their contractors’ employees ‘ridiculous’.
Reflecting back to previous discussions we’ve held in class about the power of adjectives, ‘ridiculous’ just seemed weak since it really only means he’s calling “private firms” and “their contractors” absurd and foolish.

Not really that bad, especially when compared to another former CNN host, Rick Sanchez, who was most notable fired for calling Jon Stewart “a bigot” and saying “Jews run the media”. Of course, Dobbs was wise enough to engage with a little more tact when it came to his own personal prejudices, but ‘ridiculous’ seemed off the mark when more disparaging remarks from Dobbs were available from the endless hours of radio and air time he has logged.

Another observation I made was how Macdonald used anonymous sources in a very effective manner. Instead of simply saying she interviewed a former worker that did not wish to be named, she goes ahead and provides him with a different alias (“A 36-year-old Mexican immigrant I’ll call Marco Salinas…”). By providing us with his age, ethnicity, and a name that fits the context, Macdonald still ensures trust from her readership. We are still able to picture him, and by providing a name we are also able to humanize him, rather than picturing a faceless, nameless identity.

All and all, Macdonald’s piece was provocative, despite a few lapses in the choice of quotations, but it is evident her piece was effective none-the-less by the interviews that ensued with Dobbs himself.