Sawyer apologizes for false assertion that Reid "vows to filibuster"
On the July 19 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-host Diane Sawyer apologized for her false assertion -- documented by Media Matters for America -- regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) plan to hold an all-night Senate debate prior to the July 18 cloture vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq.
On the July 17 edition of the program, Sawyer said that Reid "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." In fact, by extending the Senate session throughout the night, Reid did not "vow to filibuster," as Sawyer reported; rather, he highlighted the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal. Indeed, it was the Republicans who opposed the Democrats' effort to end debate on the legislation and move to a simple majority vote. In her on-air statement, Sawyer clarified that Reid had actually "held the all-night debate to protest the threat of a filibuster from the Republicans. ... You wrote me. You were right. I was wrong. I apologize."
From the July 19 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
SAWYER: OK, I have a quick correction about something I said earlier this week. I said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was vowing to filibuster on the whole question of the vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq and it would close out other issues. In fact, Senator Reid held the all-night debate to protest the threat of a filibuster from the Republicans on the same proposal. You wrote me. You were right. I was wrong. I apologize. We'll be back.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Good for her. This was not a horrible mistake on her part, but her correction does lend her some credibility.
Certainly hers is mistake, in 'misspeaking;' whether beautiful or horrible is in the critic's eye -- and in my view: horrible by showing premeditated intent to appall terrifically.
As to 'correcting her mistake,' she did not. She only read the next day's copy telepromptly. Correspondents corrected the mistake, as she so stated: they "wrote" it, and she but saw what was written and had not seen correction in her mistake.
The influential power of MMFA Truthiness is evident in this episode, and might presage a retaliatory effort from any, whomever, of thwarted intentions today, in someday's actual televised News Report shown in this video serving to curtail Truth's influence, though its power will out evermore.
More proof that sites like this are finally having an effect on biased reporting!
I would say this is a case of a slip-of-the-tongue from a lady who doesn't have any personal knowledge of the subject matter, more than "biased reporting." Good stuff though MMfA.
Do you really believe that Diane Sawyer doesn't know what a 'filibuster' is?
The filibuster is a tactic used by the minority. Sawyer knows that.
The Dems are the majority party. Sawyer knows that as well.
You don't think it was an honest mistake?
I'd sooner call it bad information. Don't these people read from telepromptors? Somebody else usually writes what they read...
At it's best, it was a "lazy" mistake - similar to the way a surgeon might make an honest mistake by amputating the wrong leg because he didn't read through the complete surgery order. It's inexcusable.
Yes, that's why she corrected herself. She agrees with you.
Good point.
I ignored the "biased reporting" part of Snoopy's original comment.
That's just lazy, and inexcusable.
But you didn't notice my point about teleprompting? Now I think it's great that Dianne took personal responsibility for the error and corrected it, but that's the bad part (and good part) about being a newsperson. You get all the credit for a good report, and all the blame for bad information when in truth there's a whole staff dedicated to providing the script for the newscast. I see this as a failure of the ABC staff, not Dianne.
Still, claiming bias would imply that there was intent to mislead by the wording, whether it came from Sawyer's mind or from the cue cards. I tend to back away from such an assertion because of the difficulty proving it. Laziness - and the resulting ignorance - seems like a much more easily accepted cause of the misinformation.
I would agree if this were the only example of that mistake. The multiple related variations of this in yesterday's news makes me suspect otherwise.
Honest mistake or not, it doesn't matter--it was MIS-information. She corrected herself--great, and thank you. However, she might have better served her audience had she taken another minute to explain what really happened, rather than breezing by it so as not to make the Republican's look too bad.
Setting the record straight and apologizing shows class and professionalism. It's saddening that a great many media figures have yet to grasp this concept.
I absolutely agree. Good for her!
I'm in the honest mistake camp.
Diane Sawyer made a really nice comment once about a performing group that I lead (past tense). So, just in case she is checking up here; Diane, we really appreciated your compliment about the Precision LawnChair Demonstration Team back in '92. I sent you some flowers at the time, but I gues the florist just ripped me off because I never got a thankyou card. Just wanted to let you know, was a fan and always will be a fan.
Drill Instructor, Minister of Steer Guano Dissemination
CBC
Precision LawnChair Demonstration Team, Vail CO
A minor point: "lead (past tense)" is "led." If you spell it right you don't have to explain it.
Too bad this doesn't work for "read," but you can't have everything.
Thanks for that info.
it was a minor error. good for her for correcting it.
The good news is the correction and apology.
The bad news is of how unqualified diane sawyer is in the first place, to comment or report in any way the proceedings of the U.S. Senate, when she does not understand how the Senate works.
The other news is this: So Senate Republicans have successfully 'filibustered' (that is, refused to invoke cloture of debate on) S.Amdt.2087, the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" Amendment...
So, by way of 'filibustering' that Amendment, Senate Republicans have stalled the Defense Authorization?
I mean, is this bill going to go through, or have Senate Republicans 'filibustered' it to a stand-still?
I guess the matter isn't done with just yet... I guess Iraq, and the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq", isn't just going away this easy.
You know, that's what happens when you 'filibuster' (when you refuse to invoke cloture on debate of), you keep debating... you keep the matter open... you keep the ball in play.
Maybe they've stalled the Defense Authorization, Senate Republicans have.
Okay...good deal. Now, Diane, you can make up for it by exposing all the lies the Bush administration told us leading up to the Iraq War. What's that...you don't have time...? You've got a prior engagement....? Oh well...it was worth a shot.
Let's not push it to far. Have you forgotten about Phil Donahue when he brought on anti war guests on his show?
Well, you have a point...I wouldn't want Diane to miss a payment on one of her summer cottages.
This is a minor victory. Rush Limbaugh and his fellow propaganda parrots are flooding the airwaves with the GOP version of this story. Diane's correction won't even be a blip on the radar screen.
Bravo Diane that was a class act.
Here puppies, here puppies...
I scan the network and cable news programs on a regular basis.
Without exception, the ball-chasing puppies of the MSM report that "the Democrat's bill to pull troops from Iraq was defeated" or some similar crap - they NEVER, EVER report the truth: the bill was NEVER voted on because Senate Republicans blocked efforts to bring it to a vote.
Good puppies.... goooood puh-peeeees!
Yes, one see's and hears the story begin with the phrase "Democrats fail..." blah blah blah. Please, someone explaing to me how that is not framing the issue in a pro-republican way?
PS to Tommy, yes I am a victim, a victim of ginormus multi national corporations owning mass media outlets.
Too bad. Maybe you can start a victim rights support group for all of you. Just make sure that none of your members work for or are affiliated in any way with any corporation or media outlet in this country. Cause that would be a little contrary, wouldn't it?
Maybe you just don't get it.
Assuming you are an American citizen, you ARE a victim.
You are a victim of the corporate MSM because it is intentionally dumbing down its audience. If you don't believe me, believe any of the journalists, anchors, etc. who have written on the subject of the state of journalism in this country.
And, if you think about it, you ARE taking part in a "support group" - you're here.
I am a victim if I am too lazy to seek out many different outlets for my news and information.
I am a victim if I choose not to educate myself on important issues of the day and opt not to rise above partisan spin and talk show host mentality hyperbole for analysis.
that's great that she owned up to her mis-characterization.
Diane Swayer does not make mistakes - she's always been in Republican-spin mode. She's always been about as objective as Brit Hume. She knew exactly what she was saying, and that it was BS, when she said it - her apology is only because that particular remark was so OBVIOUSLY STUPID, and confirmed her status as one more blond Republican bimbo apologist, think Ann Coulter & Laura Ingramm.
Care to backup any of your inane ranting accusations against Diane Sawyer?
If not, then perhaps one could assume that you are just a Democratic bimbo apologist......and I know that can't be true.
Tommy, you can't argue with mindreaders. You know that, right?
;-)
I know, I just couldn't help myself on this one because these posts never get challenged. But I also know that if I had come here and said something like this from the other side, everybody would just let it go too. ;)
Now THAT'S misinformation...
Tommy; "...these posts never get challanged."
I think that using the word "never" is misinformation. That would be to say that 100% of these post are NOT challenged. I think I can prove that AT LEAST 1 of these posts HAS BEEN CHALLENGED! In fact, I think that YOU have challenged posts AND posters in previous threads. I think I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least 1% of these posts have been challenged.
Also, I think you are wrong that the Liberal posters wouldn't challenge the conservative posters who did the same. In fact, I firmly believe that 90% of these types of posts by conservatives are challenged!
In closing, I hope you realize that this (my) entire post here is in jest. : )
You are officially the court jester around here.
Diane Swayer does not make mistakes - she's always been in Republican-spin mode....etc
judy judy judy
Me thinks you're going just a tad overboard here.
Please back up your accusations about Diane Sawyer. Or stop posting such slop.
Props to Diane Sawyer for acknowledging an error and correcting it. That gives her more credibility than about 95% of the rest of the mainstream news media journalists.
Thank you Diane, and great job MMFA.
Now if Diane Sawyer is capable of apologizing when she screws up, can we please show a tape of this to O'Really? It's just an idea of mine, but I wonder if the reason he's never apologized for all his misinformation (okay, lies) is that he has no idea how one goes about it. His idea of an apology seems generally to be of the, "I'm sorry your sister is a tramp." type of non-apology.
Lay this to Frank Luntz and his "focus group" testing.
The American People have a negative reaction to the notion of a "filibuster" ... for no apparent reason, since it's a valid tool of the minority ... but it is important that no matter WHAT the particulars, it must be the DEMOCRATS who are "filibustering".
To "filibuster" is to "obstruct" ... so goes the Rightwing narrative, and so Republicans cannot be said to "filibuster" ... EVER. It would bring bad feelings on them, and it's so much better to just lay the "f" word and the "obstructing" off on the Democrats.
To hell with TRUTH, to hell with FACTS, the narrative MUST be followed, the language MATTERS, and the Dems must always be shown in the MSM as the bad guys. THAT is why it is so bad that Sawyer is following the rightwing talking points ... she aids in perpetuating the BIG LIES put out there by the Rightwing to try to FOOL the people ... all the time.
Tex,
If I learn nothing else from your senseless, same-ole, same-ole posts, I do come armed from now on. With an industrial size box of tissue to wipe away the streams of tears that pour down my face when reading of the pififul plight of Democrats in this country.
After I read a few of your words, people think I have pink eye.......stop, just stop, will ya?
Too bad that Tex writes the truth - that alone is often enough to send cons into spasms.