UPDATED: Dobbs falsely identified convicted former Republican Rep. Janklow as a Democrat
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On CNN, Lou Dobbs asserted that "[f]ormer Congressman Bill Janklow, a Democrat from South Dakota, was convicted of striking and killing a motorcyclist with his car in 2003. He was sentenced to 100 days in prison." In fact, Janklow was a Republican member of the House of Representatives.
During the July 31 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs claimed, "Well, over the past 50 years, members of Congress have been convicted of at least 16 different felonies, including fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, drug possession. One member was even convicted of manslaughter." Dobbs continued, "Former Congressman Bill Janklow, a Democrat from South Dakota, was convicted of striking and killing a motorcyclist with his car in 2003. He was sentenced to 100 days in prison." In fact, Janklow was a Republican member of the House of Representatives who resigned from Congress after being convicted of manslaughter.
From the July 31 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Senator Ted Stevens today pleaded not guilty to federal corruption charges. The Republican from Alaska accused of lying about accepting more than a quarter of a million dollars worth of gifts, renovations to his Alaskan home, and not reporting them. The 84-year-old Stevens is the Senate's longest-serving Republican. If convicted, he faces five years in prison for each of the seven counts.
But even if convicted of all charges, Senator Stevens will likely still keep his congressional pension. According to the National Taxpayers Union, that pension would pay the senator at least $122,000 a year in retirement. Senator Stevens, if convicted, wouldn't be the only congressional felon to keep his pension. Many convicted congressmen are now collecting their pensions, and you're paying for them. The new congressional ethics bill tried to change that, but apparently it didn't go far enough, as Lisa Sylvester now reports.
SYLVESTER: Former congressmen Dan Rostenkowski [D-IL], James Traficant [D-OH], Duke Cunningham [R-CA], and Bob Ney [R-OH] -- what do they all have in common? They all are convicted felons who are still receiving generous pensions paid for by you, the taxpayer. Together their pensions total more than $250,000, every year, for the rest of their lives.
REP. MARK KIRK (R-IL): When we get elected to Congress, we should be held to the highest standard. And I think that that means that if you are convicted of a public integrity felony, you should not have a right to your pension.
SYLVESTER: Since 1980, 20 lawmakers have been convicted of serious crimes, and are still collecting taxpayer-funded pensions. Last year, Congress passed a law banning lawmakers convicted of certain felonies from receiving their pensions, but the law doesn't apply retroactively, and it includes only 11 types of felonies and leaves off many others, like income-tax evasion.
Prosecutors say Senator Ted Stevens made false statements regarding $250,000 in gifts and house renovations he received from corporate executives. He pleaded not guilty, but if convicted, he would still be eligible to receive his pension.
MELANIE SLOAN (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington): Here we are in a situation where the very first time out of the box that this law applies, and it doesn't apply to Ted Stevens, because this particular crime, committing false statements, doesn't count. It's not one of the crimes for which you'll lose your pension benefits.
SYLVESTER: Representative Mark Kirk has introduced legislation to close the loopholes. It would broaden current law so that any federal lawmaker who commits a felony that violates the public trust would not get to retire on the taxpayers' dime.
Senator Ted Stevens is the Senate's longest-serving Republican, and the National Taxpayers Union calculates that if he left office this year, he would be eligible to receive $122,000 pension every year for the rest of his life. Lou.
DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester.
Well, over the past 50 years, members of Congress have been convicted of at least 16 different felonies, including fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, drug possession. One member was even convicted of manslaughter. Former Congressman Bill Janklow, a Democrat from South Dakota, was convicted of striking and killing a motorcyclist with his car in 2003. He was sentenced to 100 days in prison.
UPDATE: CNN issued a correction on the August 1 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Is MMFA disputing this? Both Parties have bad apples. Dobbs made a mistake.
SYLVESTER: Former congressmen Dan Rostenkowski [D-IL], James Traficant [D-OH], Duke Cunningham [R-CA], and Bob Ney [R-OH] -- what do they all have in common? They all are convicted felons who are still receiving generous pensions paid for by you, the taxpayer. Together their pensions total more than $250,000, every year, for the rest of their lives.
Dobbs made a mistake, true, but there's a disturbing pattern in the conservative media to make this same mistake: http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130010?f=s_search
There have also been several instances of this regarding Sen. Lieberman (I), who is touted as still being a Democrat if it fits their story line ("See, even prominent Democrats agree with us...).
So yes, it was a mistake, but I suspect it was a mistake born of wishful thinking, and not just random error. After all, when was the last time a Republican was mis-identified as a Democrat when the Republican had done something good? If you can provide some counter-examples, then perhaps your point has merit.
Im hoping 2 years. Dobbs is a dinosour.
Worth repeating. :-)
Doesn't look very liberal to me...
I doubt it was intentional but maybe. If it was Fox I'd say it was intentional. But look what he's doing with this. A Rep is accused of commiting a crime so Dobbs comes out and says a Dem did a worse crime once. Reminds me of all the "but Clinton..." arguments the trolls used to throw out in defense of Bush.
Maybe Luis was thinking about those damn illegals and got confused. He had to say something so he blurted out a name. Right or wrong, what does he care? He is Senor Luis Dobbs the Unquestioned.
But it may just be a misspeak. He can get away with that one but should remember in the future that it happens to everyone.
I call unintentional mistake. It happens. I think Eliot Spitzer was once mislabeled as a Repulican in a few newspapers.
No, but is it misinformation or a mistake Snoopy?
You're the one complaining about one example of a democrat being wrongly labeled a republican. Today is just the latest of numerous examples of repbulicans being labeled as democrats. I'd say one is a mistake, three or more is a conspiracy.
Making an error in print is one thing. Saying something wrong is another.
In addition, the errors in the newspapers were mostly if not all due to the caption below a picture.
"Eliot Spitzer (R) holds a news conference in New York City with his wife Silda by his side."
He was on the right in the photo. He wasn't misidentified. They label where people are standing in photos all the time, even when it should be obvious to a casual viewer.
It wasn't misinformation nor was it a mistake.
It was a knee-jerk reaction from people on the right.
They know that they have been caught portraying do-badders from the right as Democrats.
So, when they saw a do-badder from the Democratic ranks being labeled (R), they assumed it was either a mistake or misinformation.
Instead, it was just the viewer's error and misconception.
The (R) was a photo caption. Spitzer was on the right in the photo. In newspapers, they describe where the person is that they're talking about in the photo.
You're wrong. The (R) didn't mean that the creators of that news report thought he was a Republican, or were trying to fool the readers of that report.
This is an example of bad journalism. Sure, he made a mistake and I don't see it as anything more, but the point is that such a basic item of information should have been carefully presented.
Such mistakes lead the viewer to wonder what other things he is getting wrong. Reporting on the financial stability of your bank? The safety of your medication? The price of your stocks?
In casual conversation, mistakes are forgiven, but getting information correct is HIS JOB.
This "mistake" by Dobbs was only made out of the need for the journalistic "balance".
(It is very likely that Dobbs made this so-called mistake on purpose. Regardless, it is pure misinformation.)
That is ridiculous. If he was out for "balance" as you say, he could have easily mentioned any of a number of Democrats convicted of felonies, he certainly wouldn't have to lie about one's party affiliation, something so easily verifiable.
Dobbs should apologize for his mistake and MMFA has every right to put it here, it is clearly misinformation.
Dobbs should apologize for his mistake and MMFA has every right to put it here, it is clearly misinformation.
Those are both no-brainers.
As for Dobbs' mistake, party affiliation was wrongly assigned based on someone's foolish and perhaps hopeful thinking.
Oh, so Dobbs was just "wishful thinking" when he mistakenly identified a Republican as being a Democrat? That makes perfect sense. Next, he'll be wishfully thinking he is really Brad Pitt.
I disagree with your opinion, most reasonable people would.........but you have every right to express it nonetheless, by all means continue to do so.
Now there, isn't that easy....
You disargee. Again, well done!
(don't worry about making a counter-argument or anything, I'm sure "most reasonable people" agree with your disagreement with my opinion that Dobbs' party affiliation 'guess' was completely non-partisan.)
I made my counterargument in my response to you initially Governor, hence the beginning of our disagreement. Don't blame you if get lost or confused after a couple posts. Next time, reread them all so you can refresh your memory on our opinion differences. But if not, that's fine too.
And keep posting your opinions, I get such a kick out of them....
No need to start in with insults. As for you two points...
1.) that he could have easily named an actual convicted Dem if he wanted two.
Um, he thought he already had his man, but he guessed wrong.
2.) why would he willfully make a mistake, since it's so easily verifiable.
He really thought he had the right man, but he guessed wrong.
Governor,
This is a classic example of a difference of opinion that is based on perception and judgment. You see his mistake as intentional, I believe......I see it as unintentional. There is no way you can prove your point, no way I can prove mine. Unless Dobbs admits it either way, and then we could still disagree about his truthfulness. Those who have a perception of Dobbs being some rightwing hack will probably go along with your viewpoint. Those who do not see him that way would probably agree with me.
What we are left with is a difference of opinion, we could go around and around but it's probably moot. I accept the opinion difference, we can still say the other opinion is wrong, but that has nothing to do with accepting it....as they say, agree to disagree.
Basically the problem, as I see it, is this. Some people come here because they want their opinions validated and agreed with, applauded if you will, "high fived", so when they see another opinion that is contrary to theirs they don't like it. They can't accept it for whatever reason, so instead of arguing theirs and eventually accepting it, they fight it as fact, pigeonhole it into that category falsely so they don't have to accept it as a difference of opinion, they can't deny it as a lie, or a untrue fact.
However, many others can accept opposing opinions because they don't feel theirs threatened or violated. Their convictions are strong enough and they can defend their points intelligently enough to accept the disagreements, even if argued passionately, and move on.
I've been around here long enough......
"they can't deny it as a lie"
should be, they can call it a lie.
PS:
"You see his mistake as intentional, I believe......I see it as unintentional."
I see his guess (one that I assume he thought was a fact but was in truth a falsehood) as partisan.
Both of you have poopy pants.
The bill disallowing some convicted felons to collect Congressional pensions was created by Democrats and passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
It was one of the first bills passed by the House in mid-January last year.
Who commented on that bill in the story Media Matters cites? A Republican was quoted as supporting that denial of pension benefits. Not a Democrat, whose party made the bill happen, but a Republican.
They listed 4 people who have been convicted of felonies but still receive pensions, 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Who was listed first? The two Democrats.
Anyone want to still try to say that it was a simple mistake with no potential sinister undertones?
Enjoy:
Lunatics and Liars
"If we reported it, it’s a fact."
--Lou Dobbs on 60 Minutes.
How's that, Lou?
While this certainly shows a disturbing trend recently I would still like to see a hard study of news story misidentification of party related to the positive/negative response by news station. It would also be interesting to see what else was the major story of the time -- was attention being drawn away from another subject or party.
This could be viewed as a simple mistake -- which I would like to believe. But given that a good percentage of people still think that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and/or had in their possession WMD at the time of the invasion or right before -- I am inclined to think that someone with an agenda (since it happened 3 times in one week) is misinforming an already woefully uninformed public