CNN's Pilgrim: "[W]e misidentified former Congressman Bill Janklow as a Democrat"
During the August 1 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Kitty Pilgrim issued a correction, noting that the previous evening, CNN had misidentified South Dakota Republican Bill Janklow as a Democrat. Pilgrim said: "Well, last night, we reported on the different types of felonies committed by members of Congress, and in that report, we misidentified former Congressman Bill Janklow as a Democrat. Janklow was, in fact, a Republican congressman from South Dakota."
From the August 1 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
PILGRIM: Well, last night, we reported on the different types of felonies committed by members of Congress, and in that report, we misidentified former Congressman Bill Janklow as a Democrat. Janklow was, in fact, a Republican congressman from South Dakota. He resigned after he was convicted of a manslaughter in the death of a motorcyclist in a traffic accident.
Not the first time it happened, and with Dobbs off yesterday , easy way to say they are sorry.
You make a good point sueeld, did this not happen before where Lou Dobbs said something and someone else on CNN had to rectify it the next day?
I think CNN needs to start asking some questions.
1) Is Lou Dobbs professional? I say no
2) Is Lou Dobbs bias? I think he is , he tries to play the "independent" game , yet this is a person who despises anyone born south of the Texas border , I am not fond of this man and his mistakes even go back to the his 60 Minutes crap last year.
SUEELD....... I second that good point,
While I give kudo's for the apology.... it is certainly interesting that Lou Dobbs just had to take the night off for said apology to be made, instead of being a man and doing it himself!
Or did he need the day off to be at home to thank his illegal Mexican workers for what a great job their doing on his landscaping?
No, we don't see that it was a simple mistake.
As I said yesterday, the loss of pensions by convicted felons is as a result of a bill passed by the newly-Democratically controlled Congress in 2007. It was one of the first bills the House of Representatives passed in mid-January.
But who did CNN use to promote the loss of pensions in this report? A Republican. This bill was put into place when Democrats got leadership back in the House, yet the person who was chosen to be a spokesperson for the bill was a Republican?
Next, they listed 4 Congressmen who didn't lost pension benefits because the bill was not made retroactive, and which party were the two that were mentioned first? Democrats!
I don't believe this was a simple mistake. The fact that they corrected it doesn't mean that it was a mistake. The reason they corrected it was because they were caught in the error. It doesn't prove whether it was intentional or an accident, contrary to what you'd pretend it says, Dawuss.
Here's what Dawuss said yesterday.
I call unintentional mistake. It happens. I think Eliot Spitzer was once mislabeled as a Repulican in a few newspapers.
Except that's not true, as I replied to his post yesterday. Not only is an error by a newspaper not the same as a spoken error, but the newspaper didn't make an error - it was an error by the people misreading the photo caption, and lastly, an error by someone else doesn't mean anything about this error this week! Why didn't you acknowledge your error yesterday, Dawuss? Failure to acknowledge an error is a sign.
"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. The (R) didn't mean Republican.
"Except that's not true, as I replied to his post yesterday. Not only is an error by a newspaper not the same as a spoken error, but the newspaper didn't make an error - it was an error by the people misreading the photo caption, and lastly, an error by someone else doesn't mean anything about this error this week! Why didn't you acknowledge your error yesterday, Dawuss? Failure to acknowledge an error is a sign."
I stand corrected.
These items crack me up. Some highly-paid professional journalist says something objectively wrong, and it's noted by MMFA.
Then the comments here take off with people arguing whether it was deliberate or an honest mistake. Completely irrelevant, except as a side subject.
It is completely irrelevant to the point that whether it was accidental or on purpose, it still was conservative misinformation. It still furthered the conservative agenda to portray Dems as bad whenever possible. The motivation is irrelevant. Let me repeat that. The motivation of the speaker is not relevant.
This second posting is here by Media Matters because they always post when a correction is made after conservative misinformation is spewed.
So, now, we're talking about whether the original posting was likely an accident or on purpose.
Hopefully this explanation can drill its way into your brain. I'm not hopeful though.
Any reasonable person doesn't accept insincere apologies or apologies that put the responsibility on the listener for being offended rather than putting the burden where it belongs, on the person who said something offensive!
The motivation of the speaker is not relevant.
Thanks, BB. I didn't think it was too complicated.
So, how come Dobbs didn't have the balls to issue the apology himself? What kind of coward sends a woman to do his clean-up?
(no offense, ladies!)
yeah, i agree. Dobbs huffs and puffs a lot, but when it comes time to show his real meddle, it becomes a disappearing act. Over at MSNBC, at least Capus made an apology on air with the David Schuster distaff gaffe.
What kind of coward sends a woman to do his clean-up?
(no offense, ladies!)
Hey dawg, are you calling this CNN broad a "pooper scooper" for Dobbs?
I believe he was off on Friday on a scheduled day off. The correction was given on his show by his substitute host.
Kitty Pilgrim is a tool too. She was part of some really offensive comments last week when she was subbing for Lou Dobbs. I'm surprised that Media Matters didn't cover some of those comments.
OT, but <tee hee!> remember yesterday's stunt by the oil loving republicans? Check out this little tidbit...
“Bring the Congress back. Let’s have a real up or down vote,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) proclaimed. In fact, there was a real up or down vote on gas prices just two days before. And Boehner is well aware of it because he was responsible for ensuring it didn’t pass. Dan Weiss explains on the Wonk Room what occurred this week:
Ha! All those conservative apoligists from yesterday were just used again. How's it feel knowing the people you keep voting for just use you like a tool?
Hey Snoopy,
Restricting 'profiteers' -- if you actually believe they exist -- would have done NOTHING to lower gas prices. In fact it may have helped lower supply thereby RAISING the price. Let me spell it out for you: E-C-O-N-O-M-I-C-S. The Marxist Dems proving once again they know nothing about that subject as this vote was petty politics because the Dems you love so much are LOSING this debate on energy and losing BADLY
It's easy to give the benefit of the doubt with the media. There are enough undoubted grievances to hit them with every single day. No need for us to spend any time on doubtful ones.
In a chronicle of media malfeasance, this incident ends up on the cutting room floor, as do all slightly "iffy" incidences.
Sure, but if you present all other examples of bias first, you'll fill a lifetime without getting to this.
That's certainly true. I'm a big picture person myself. This is an annoying blip on the screen. But where you and I differ is with your idea that it is "iffy". This type of error been documented here enough times to make me think it's not coincidence, a mistake or any iffiness. Just another (albeit small) cog in the propaganda machine that is our dominant media.
If Dobbs had a record of doing this with Dems , i would say it was a mistake, but he does not. He seems to love painting dems as bad guys, when the real bad guy seems to be Dobbs.
So this is the only response from CNN. Nothing like "we regret the error and will strive to more accurately do our job"?
Had to be deliberate - if they had really thought he was a Dem, they would never have IDed his party.
The item with Spitzer also - he was not IDed as a Dem by most of the MM as a Dem once his peccadilloes became public. It was like he didn't have any political affiliation.
How does a news organization flub simple points like party affiliation? Are Republicans constantly crossing over to Democratic Party and vice versa? And why is the typical example of such an error a Republican in the midst of scandal misidentified as a Democrat? Fox doesn't know Mark Foley is a Republican? They sure knew he was a Republican when Foley helped Bush get elected during the 2000 recount scandal. Well, it's a scandal to those of us who know Bush is a nightmare. It's celebrated like Christmas around Fox HQ.
Randy