Bozell acknowledges network taking responsibility for misleading viewers to believe conservatives at odds with Gov. Palin
 |
| Spreading the Word |
As we reported on Tuesday, CNN's Drew Griffin completely mischaracterized the nature of a "quote" from National Review's Byron York during his interview with Alaskan Republican Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
CNN has responded to the Media Research Center's call for CNN to retract the accusation that wrongly accused National Review's Byron York of calling Gov. Sarah Palin "incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above," and have taken full responsibility for the mischaracterization.
Yesterday, the cable network addressed the mistake on both Newsroom and The Situation Room, explaining the circumstances of the badly-worded representation of the statement and clarifying reporter Drew Griffin's intention, which was not to deceive his audience that a well-respected conservative publication was putting itself at odds with Gov. Palin.
"I never really explained the point of the National Review before she finished answering the question," explained Griffin on Newsroom, addressing the tricky timing of the discourse between himself and Gov. Palin. "...In no way did I intend to misquote the National Review."
Griffin also made an appearance to correct his statement on The Situation Room saying, "Unfortunately, my question -- I botched it. I misquoted York by using the word 'I' instead of reading his direct quote, which I had in front of me, which attributes the statement to the media."
MRC President and Newsbusters.org Publisher L. Brent Bozell, III issued the following statement in response:"To its credit, CNN has gone out of its way to address and clarify the error on two separate occasions. We acknowledge this effort and are confident that the network has given proper gravity to the mischaracterization and taken proactive steps to correct it.
"We also take Drew Griffin and CNN at their word - that this mistake was not intended to mislead viewers to think a conservative magazine had trashed Gov. Palin. Conservatives have endured hundreds - even thousands - of examples of the media deliberately distorting our words and positions. In this case, there was not a deliberate attempt.
"As far as the Media Research Center is concerned, this case is closed."
—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center and Contributing Editor for NewsBusters.org.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Excellent
October 24, 2008 - 09:15 ET by bschoomI can read this over & over again. Nice job!
I head Bill O'Reilly on the morning replay of last night's show state Fox News was at odds, stated as a 'war' with NY Times.
It's a real boost hearing some of these lame writers being called out. It's not just about the election, it's going much further than that. Make them accoutable.
»→ Question
October 24, 2008 - 09:21 ET by Cool ArrowAs a member of NewsBusters, do I have to believe the sincerity of the retraction?
He doesn't owe me an apology. There is a woman campaigning for Vice President who is owed one.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I'll bet...
October 24, 2008 - 09:29 ET by retroconI'll bet that viewership during the attempted "gotcha" of Sarah was a lot higher than viewership for any and all of the "corrections."
I saw clips of both
October 24, 2008 - 09:35 ET by NorthCoasterand I'm not impressed with the "apology". This was an attempt at a "Gotcha" question to put Sarah Palin on the defensive responding to Conservative criticism of her position as the Republican V. P. delegate.
CNN
October 24, 2008 - 09:35 ET by GothampcWhile I usually respect Brent's judgment, I don't consider this matter closed. The fact that Griffin tried to spin out of it by saying that Governor Palin cut him off has not been addressed. CNN should broadcast an apology to Governor Palin
NO QUARTER ON THIS
October 24, 2008 - 09:56 ET by SickofLibsRight on. This lame excuse is BS. CNN/Griffin must apologize DIRECTLY TO GOV. PALIN, not into the ozone. That is what is required, nothing less.
This 'apology' is analogous to the playground bully punching another kid in the face, getting nailed on it, and then, in the principal/parent meeting, saying "I didn't mean to actually hit him, Mommy!"
I am sick and tired of
October 24, 2008 - 14:02 ET by sanergononlibI am sick and tired of conservatives playing the *we're not stooping to their level* when responding to obvious attempts to slime a Repub. Look what has happened everyone, we have a leftist man with no experience with loads of marxist friends, he wants to tax us because of fairness, he claims he will change the world (to what?) and the MSM has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do even the most superficial vetting. UNBELIEVABLE!!! TERRIFYING!!!
Thats bull.
October 24, 2008 - 09:43 ET by nwahsDid Bozwell watch the "clarification?" It wasn't a clarification, it was another lie. Griffen had time to clarify when Palin asked "who wrote that?" She didn't answer so fast as for Griffen not to have enough time to explain. I don't know how anyone could accept that when no apology was given.
All I can say is this is a very weird election with people saying some very weird things.
I disagree. CNN's "explanation" is laughable
October 24, 2008 - 09:46 ET by krendlerSorry. I'm not normally a rabble rouser on this board but I disagree wholeheartedly. CNN has NOT taken responsibility for what Griffin did.
Gibson's "It was not my intention" excuse is completely and utterly shattered by his setup for the question he asked Palin:
The press has been pretty hard on you. The Democrats have been pretty
hard on you. But also, some conservatives have been pretty hard on you
as well. The National Review had a story saying that...
Griffin's goes in EXPLICITLY stating, in typical MSM style, that "oh, it's not just the media and democrats who are saying this about you. Here's a conservative..."
His explanation, that "I never really explained the point of the National Review before she finished answering the question," is utterly laughable. No, Drew. You explained your intent BEFORE the question was asked: "CONSERVATIVES ARE BEING HARD ON YOU" (and here, Gov. Palin, is an example I found).
Nobody "misconstrued" anything. He made his intentions clear at the very outset and he proceeded to rip the National Review quote completely out of context to embarrass Palin.
CNN weasels out
October 24, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Mary Louise TurnerThis non-apology by CNN is typical of the MSM when they get caught doing something wrong. They con you into thinking they're sorry but, of course, they're not. I'm not buying this phony "apology", Mr. Griffin. You and your network weaseled out as usual.
Heh.
October 24, 2008 - 10:15 ET by Saint ZeroLike I'm going to believe the liberal media? Come on. He knew what he was doing, did it precisely as he wanted, and knew he'd get a chance to dig it deeper when called on to "apologise". More publicity for the original comment, none for the lame-as-heck "apology".
Lie about a lie
October 24, 2008 - 22:23 ET by Jonah JohansenCNN's explanation isn't plausible.
They want us to believe Drew Griffen knew before asking the
question, that the quote he read, was not the actual opinion of a NR writer but
the NR writers characterization of the media's opinion.
If that were the case then when Sarah Palin expressed surprise and
asked skeptically "Who wrote that?" then Mr. Griffen had the perfect
opportunity and it would be logical for him to correct himself or correct the impression he was making that this was the writers own opinion.
If his real intent in bringing up the quote was to ask a
question of the sort 'A writer at the National Review says that the media
are portraying you as ......' and if Palin's quick response interrupted
his question; he would have followed that line of questioning; not leave it
hanging and making it appear as if he was putting forth the quote as the actual
opinion of the NR writer.
___________________________
What is far more plausible is that Drew Griffen was trolling left
wing blogs or someone working for CNN told him you will never believe what
someone on the National Review said about Sarah Palin. It is very
possible that they then copied and pasted a partial text to him or possibly that he received or actually went to the NR site and read the
full article.
What can happen and has happened to me; is that someone tells you
ahead of time what an article says or you already expect that an article is
going to make a particular point (ex. a liberal columnist writing about
abortion). If you read the article quickly one time or in general are not
careful, you can totally miss the point or understand the logic. (ex. the
liberal columnist could actually be trying to criticize the radical pro-choice
advocates by quoting someone who supports partial birth abortion). Drew
Griffen and the people at CNN are so in the tank for Obama, that anything they
see or hear which is negative about his opponents is immediately believed with little
or any skepticism
The point remains that his intent was to attack and embarrass
Sarah Palin not to do a fair interview.
Owed apology
October 24, 2008 - 10:31 ET by tostlundI don't for one minute, buy the apology. Also, the unapology was directed to the wrong place. He needs to call Sarah Palin and say these exact words. "I apologize for the gotcha question I asked which of course was an attempt to embarrass you on national TV. I am very sorry (for getting caught). In the future I will attempt, ( though likely unsuccessfully), to keep my personal politics out of my reporting. Have a nice campaign".
OMG!...
October 24, 2008 - 10:39 ET by Paul GI read, then re-read Mr. Bozells' statement in response. Am I going looney? or is this a practical joke on Mr. Bozells part?
"We take Drew Griffen and CNN at their word" ?? REALLY??
Either NB has changed editors, or I might have to find another site. I can't believe this! Is NB going soft? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!
Can you tell I'm pissed? I'm gonna hope there's more to this than we posters here know. As far as I'm concerned, this 'case ' isn't closed.
Byron York's response
October 24, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Matthew BalanCNN, Palin and Me [Byron York]
Yesterday CNN's Drew Griffin addressed his misquote of my article during that interview with Sarah Palin:
Just for the record, I've said that I thought the bigger harm in all this was to Palin, who was hit on-camera with an out-of-nowhere quote. But as far as I'm concerned, Griffin's explanation is fine with me, and I consider this closed.
10/24 08:39 AM
I agree
October 24, 2008 - 11:32 ET by Captain KirockGiven Griffin's recent stories on ACORN and Obama's connections to William Ayers, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Resume enhancement
October 24, 2008 - 11:04 ET by acumen"...In no way did I intend to misquote the National Review."
Of course not. That was your producer's intention.
Which means you might want to add the following to your resume - boob, chump, doormat, dupe, easy mark, fall guy, fool, mark, patsy, pigeon, pushover, sap, scapegoat, schmuck, stooge, sucker, useful idiot. Case closed....
Another daily example
October 24, 2008 - 11:48 ET by badcleatsThese type of things are not mistakes, they are deliberate. Everyday somewhere in the news media,at least one of these type of things is out there. I have been an AOL subscriber for 9 years, and I am going to bail soon as I get all my settings in a row. They have always been bias, but over the past couple months, the daily features with their comments being controlled in some way. Not gonna wait around to find out why either. They don't need me, they are so obviously behind Obama, might as well be the Seattle P I. All we need now is "The Fairness Doctrine". Sarah Palin is a looker, but she is tuff, smart, and the Left has to smear her from day one out of fear.
NO!
October 24, 2008 - 22:36 ET by stratmanI could not disagree with Brent Bozell more.
This was essentially a non-apologetic cover statement.
I heard the passion in Griffin's voice in his verbal raping of Palin. He had ample opportunity to clarify his intent with Palin. Griffin was going for character assassination, pure and simple. Whatever he's reported or written previously has zero bearing on his behaviour during this lynching.
Griffin is a coward and base opportunist. His abusive, freakish interview eclipsed those of Couric, Gibson and Williams in its ferocity and cannibalism.
Until I hear/read in a prominent fashion an actual apology directly to Sarah Palin, one that actually uses the words "sorry" and "I was wrong", devoid of any qualifying excuses such as being interrupted or unprepared, there will be no forgiveness or resolution from me.
Some things one should never excuse. Griffin's interview is one such thing.
I completely disagree.
October 26, 2008 - 17:02 ET by needle"Conservatives have endured hundreds - even thousands - of examples of the media deliberately distorting our words and positions. In this case, there was not a deliberate attempt."
I completely disagree: A Pulitzer Prize for lying
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.