Friday, April 29, 2005

And their point with the blogosphere is? Recent MSM gaffes

This from Brit Hume's Special Report from Fox News:

Salazar Expresses Regret
Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar (search) this week referred to the Christian group Focus on the Family, which supports President Bush as "the Anti-Christ of the world." But Salazar now says he didn't mean that, saying, "I regret having used [those words]."

Air America Apologizing

In an audio skit about President Bush's Social Security (search) proposal earlier this week, a voice on Air America, the liberal radio network, said, "here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp," and then sounded three shotgun blasts. Air America is now apologizing for that, calling it a "bad" skit and insisting, "our normal vetting process failed."

AP Incorrect

The AP this week quoted the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler Jr, as saying that putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with Christian beliefs. But Mohler never said that. The AP now says it "incorrectly paraphrased" him.

NPR: "We Regret Any Error or Confusion"

A National Public Radio (search) host said, "a book by a conservative commentator ... has leveled ... charges [similar]" to those by Republicans that judicial activist judges bring violence upon themselves. But the book, "Men in Black" by Mark Levin, never says that. NPR now says it was just "turn[ing] to a critique of the book" from a previous subject, and "we regret any error or confusion."

"Post"-ed a Correction

And finally, The Washington Post (search) today has a headline saying that Tom DeLay (search) "is likely to be found culpable." But the piece accompanying it doesn't say that, instead saying that Delay is "in danger" of being found in violation of House ethics rules, but could also be "vindicated." The Post now says its headline "overstated" the situation.


But, not to be outdone, our very own Strib:

"Caught in a Contradiction"

An editorial page editor at the Minneapolis Star Tribune (search) insisted earlier this week that his paper has never advocated a change to Senate filibuster rules. But after some media noted that when President Clinton's proposals were being filibustered, the paper called on politicians to "crusade for changes in Senate procedures," Editorial page deputy editor Jim Boyd now admits his paper has been "caught in a contradiction." He says he and his staff "missed" the old editorial.


Kinda begs the question:

With the relatively unlimited time and resources available to them to fact check, just why is the MSM so quick to point its collective bony finger of indignation toward bloggers?

hat tip to PianoBuff from Unto the Breach