Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Bob's Endorsements are Worthless

There is one underlying thing I want you to take away from this blog: The fact that Bob Dutko is making a living by selling you lies. Not just lies about science and history, but lies about the goods and services he sell.

This is Bob doing an endorsement for the law firm of Goodwin and Scieszka:



Among the areas of practice that the Goodwin firm specializes in is medical malpractice.

So you'd think that when Bob has a cause of action in this area of law, he'd rely on the fine attorneys of Goodwin & Scieszka, right?

Wrong.

Sadly, Bob's daughter Colleen passed away in Bob's arms, apparently of an inherited heart defect. Rather than accept that Colleen's heart anomaly was the work of a loving God, Bob sued his daughter's doctor for medical malpractice. Bob retained not one, but two law firms to prosecute his claim. Strangely, neither firm was Goodwin & Scieszka.

The first firm was Zausmer, Kaufman, August Caldwell & Tayler, P.C. They worked on the case until they requested to withdraw in March of 2007.

After the withdrawal was granted, Bob retained a second firm, Sommers & Schwartz P.C. Sommers & Schwartz were the attorneys of record until they were granted a withdrawal in July of 2007.

At no point did Bob retain the firm of Goodwin & Scieszka to pursue his claims, despite the fact that they advertise on his show and medical malpractice is an area of law they specialize in.

Don't believe me? Go to the Macomb County Court Explorer, search for the name "Robert Dutko" and read the docket entries.

Thus, an underlying question arises: Why would Bob Dukto endorse a law firm that he refused to use when he sued someone?

I offer an answer: Bob doesn't need to believe his own endorsements, he just needs you to believe his endorsements. Bob's endorsements exist for the sole purpose of providing a profit to Crawford Broadcasting, based on the ratings that Bob generates. At no point does this guarantee that Bob must be sincere in his endorsements.

What do we call someone whose actions don't match his claims? Hypocrite.

9 comments:

Pat said...

Let’s see: Bob & hypocrisy – any connection? Well, certainly you point out one case. It seems to me that in addition, we could cite the relentless criticism of John Edwards during the Democratic primaries, by both Bob and Crawford, in the course of which it was pointed out ad nauseam that Edwards engaged in the reprehensible habit of helping victims of medical malpractice pursue claims against doctors. During this campaign, you’ll recall, G&C were conspicuously absent from the air, until it was clear that Edwards didn’t stand a chance – then they didn’t waste any time getting back on.
Of course, examples in other areas are copious also. If you listened yesterday, you’d have heard Bob fabricating Obama’s response to the Muslim cultural center planned near “ground zero,” and nattering on about how insensitive Obama’s ascribed comments were. That’s right – insensitive. Political manipulation completed, Bob reverted to form and started railing against the “political correctness” that’s ruining our nation. So which is it: be sensitive to others’ life experiences, or have them get over it already? The answer, of course, depends on the goal of the moment.
That’s the hypocrisy addressed, but of course there’s the outright lying (not just when he knew he was making up the Obama interpretation on which the hypocritical sensitivity was based and – surprisingly – had this called to his attention repeatedly by listeners dialing in to express their opinion instead of his). There are all the times he alludes to his having “debated” some illustrious figure, when in reality he knows he relies on controlling the mic and the agenda for discussion. He sells his “Top Ten Proofs” of the existence of god (which, regrettably don’t include any proofs, although they pose a whole host of rhetorical questions to which the answer is apparently supposed to be, “therefore god exists”), and he does so despite admitted on the air when talking with some “creation scientists” that there really is no proof in the strict sense of the word. So why does he say things he knows aren’t true (hence lying, rather than acting contrary to his stated commitments, which would be hypocrisy, as pointed out)?
In part it’s because he wants to advance his agenda no matter what (another case of hypocrisy given the lip service he pays morality), but I think in part it’s that it’s a tremendous ego that keeps being fed when he’s told how smart and articulate he is, how great a role model is he, etc. In short, I think Bob goes between knowing he’s full of it and believing his own press. Maybe he should see Celeste Sue Benskey about this. What's the clinical term for "believing what you know you're making up?"

scooter said...

I have to admit, Bob fascinates me. I wish I knew more about human psychology because his case is an interesting one. He is almost unfailingly dishonest, and yet my gut feeling is that he actually believes his own lies even when he can't possibly not know that they are false.
I've considered that he might be motivated by simple greed (and his worldview is based on nothing if not greed and selfishness), but I think it goes deeper than that; I think that he is so heavily invested in his narrow belief system that he is incapable of entertaining a contrary view. Maybe the is what is meant by 'epistemic closure'. Sadly, he is not alone in this. Occasionally Bob will give a glimpse of his childhood, and I think he got twisted at an early age. I find him generally repulsive, but I also pity him. I don't think he can help himself.
Occasionally, when Bob does a story during the newshour about some poor Christian who has been 'persecuted' I will research the story afterward. Invariably there is some important detail that Bob has neglected to mention that entirely changes the color of the story, and invariably the poor Christian who was arrested, or fired, or whatever had it coming.

Irl Hudnutt said...

Pat,

You've made some nice points. Bob adjusts his outrage (and show) for the subject matter being discussed, all in an effort to not appear hypocritical.

When Bob's guest is a journalist, he moves the conversation into science specifically to ambush them and prove his "intellectual" superiority.

But what you'll never hear is Bob call up a theoretical physicist and challenge his knowledge of the second law of thermodynamics.

Bob is a so it's official: Not only is Bob a hypocrite and liar, he's also a coward.

Irl

Irl Hudnutt said...

Scooter,

I too, used to wonder what created Bob. I knew people, like Bob, who grew up in the "Worldwide Church of God." Suffice to say, "abusive" doesn't cover what I saw.

But you know what? After many years of trying to figure out what made people like Dutko tick, I came to a conclusion: I don't care.

What I do care about is the effect that lying morons like Dutko have. He's no better than the Rod Parsleys and Creflo Dollars of this world. They do an untold amount of damage to people by telling them they are subservient and can acquire the "truth" for a nominal fee.

It's douchebaggery of the highest degree.

I don't care if Dutko's daddy was mean to him. I don't care if his mommy wouldn't let him have Christmas presents. None of it excuses the harm he causes in the here and now.

Pat said...

I don’t have the training help me to diagnose Bob clinically and with confidence. In my capacity as an amateur in this area, though, I would say that, from the comments he’s made regarding the death of his daughter and mother, it’s extremely difficult for him to deal with separation from those he loves, at least separation in the uncompromising form of death. In part, I think that he, like many others, depends on belief/hope of an afterlife to recast the immensely difficult to cope with into something that can be postponed or avoided altogether. This impression seems to be supported by his stated views on the inerrancy of the Bible: for all the lip service he pays to intellectual characteristics, Bob is no intellectual, and he knows it. He can’t deal with ambiguity or nuance, for example. He can’t accept that there are no matters of fact with respect some things. This is why, for him, if he doubts anything at all as being literally the case in the Bible, he won’t know how to keep from doubting all of it, and at that point, he’d be left with nothing of value (according to his understanding). As a result, he clings to his absurd positions for fear of having no comforting world view as an alternative. I can’t imagine that he doesn’t know all this at some level.
At the same time, he seems to me profoundly uncomfortable about his intellectual status. I’d guess that this is a long-standing issue that’s not ameliorated by his knowing (as well as anyone else) that he’s uneducated. My own suspicion is that he didn’t come close to finishing high school, although I concede he may have gotten a diploma on the basis of “social promotion.” This impression seems to be supported by his comments about his meager chances for success in college because he’d be “debating” the professors incessantly about everything they’d say, as if to say he’s too cool for school. It also manifests itself in his need to control the mic, “ambush” guests (including giving them 30 seconds for a response that would take at least 5 minutes once they were done correcting his mistakes and assumptions, recasting ill-formulated questions, etc.), and not inviting anyone with real expertise on the show (with very rare exceptions), as you’ve pointed out.
The upshot of all this for the current topic is twofold. First, I think that he is able to execute the mental contortions necessary to be dishonest and know it, on the one hand, while desperately wanting to believe these things, on the other. Second, I don’t pity him, because, as I said, I think that he knows he’s doing this at some level, and he has it within reach to work against this state of affairs. Instead, he’s chosen to turn his energies to promoting an agenda vigorously which, as I mentioned in another post, has produced much harm to innocent bystanders. By this, I don’t just mean that he’s misled people into getting services they wish they hadn’t or into purchasing CDs that are an embarrassment when trotted out in front of someone who can rip the contents to shreds without effort, although this would be bad enough. Rather he goes well beyond taking advantage of those who, just like him, are desperately seeking childlike comfort in a belief system. If you’ve tuned in the last several days, you’ll have noticed the relentless exhortations on the part of Crawford to get out and vote. This is what I alluded to in another post: Bob willingly provides aid and comfort to those seeking to impose a malicious, reprehensible agenda on all of us. The people being exhorted to vote, after all, are the ones Bob works to keep indoctrinated and ideologically pure between election cycles.

Pat said...

BTW, if there's any doubt about the importance of a political agenda, check out the "Political Roundtable":
http://www.101wyde.com/CBC-Political-Round-Table/7930382

Jon said...

Ambush is right. I did an in studio interview with Bob and he sprung this question on me related to information and evolution and how information content never increases so this makes evolution false. Basically I had to admit that I didn't know much about it and I'd look into it.

So I did, only to discover that Bob is completely wrong (I discuss this at my blog here). I tried to call in on open line Friday. Bob wouldn't let me on. I asked him if he'd let me on if I submitted my question in advance. He said he would. So I did and I waited a couple of months to give him a chance to look into it. Then I contacted him again and basically he won't let me on.

So if he thinks there's a good chance you understand the issue he doesn't want to let you speak.

This incident apparently has not slowed Bob down in terms of using this same argument that he won't permit me to challenge on Open Line Friday, as I discuss here.

Pat said...

There have been many instances of the kind you describe, as I’m sure you know. There was a guest once a few years ago who won every argument and wrapped up by saying something to the effect of: I hope that once I’m off the program and you turn to spinning what I’ve said in my absence, your listeners will nevertheless go to the websites I suggest to inform themselves. I thought it noteworthy because it called Bob out on his manipulation while providing helpful information to those who sought it. Another noteworthy show had Daniel Dennett on to discuss his book Breaking the Spell. I have to say, I was shocked when I realized who was talking, because Bob usually likes to have ditto heads on. I can only imagine that Bob had no idea who he was talking to, and soon was overwhelmed with information, arguments and references he himself could in no way prepare for. It was magnificent. Of course, once Dennett was off the phone, Bob tried to portray the exchange using his usual “two geeks debating” spin, hoping that those who weren’t paying attention didn’t realize that he’d just lost all his “arguments” by a wide margin. These are the only cases that occur to me, though. Usually, Bob sticks to the usual tricks, and does what he can to make sure the person coming on doesn’t have any idea of the many ways Bob manipulates appearances to make himself seem informed and logically rigorous, so the guest can’t prepare a strategy for coping. This is all to say I sympathize with you as a result of your treatment.
At the same time, I think sites such as this one (and your blogs, etc.) are important precisely because they serve as an antidote to Bob’s incessant lying and manipulation, and they provide fora for those who can’t get on his show. There are also ever more books out by people seeking to put an end to the deliberate disinformation disseminated by Bob and his kind (The Counter-Creationism Handbook and Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond come to mind). Hopefully the influence of those like Bob will decline precipitously, really soon. That Bob himself will start being honest with his audience is, however, too much to hope for.

james said...

Bob is too despicable to be an actual christian. He claims to welcome your comments on his face book and then banned me after I posted contradictions in the bible. Caught me by complete surprise. Which is why this blog didn't.