Accuracy in Media

Conservatives have felt that Sarah Palin is being treated unfairly by the liberal press and CNN”s Drew Griffin interview only reinforced those views.

From TVNewser

After nearly two months since she was announced as the GOP Veep candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin sat down for an interview on CNN yesterday. But one of correspondent Drew Griffin‘s questions has become a focus, after it misrepresented a recent Byron York column in the National Review (via Breitbart.TV).

As he began the question, Griffin said, “You’ve been mocked in the
press, the press has been pretty hard on you,” and said she’s taken
heat from conservatives as well, noting a National Review story saying,
“I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified or all
of the above.”

“Who wrote it? I’d like to talk to that person,” responded Palin.

The “story” Griffin referred to was a York column that was instead an indictment of the media, and not Palin. The full
sentence reads: “Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate
for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin
is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well,
all of the above.”

Overnight, National Review Online published the column, which
previously could only be seen in print, and added an editor’s note,
saying the article “became a campaign issue Tuesday when CNN’s Drew
Griffin distorted its meaning in a high-profile interview with Palin.
CNN’s problems aside, what was the story really about? And what did it
say about Palin’s readiness for office?”

UPDATE

Griffin’s clarification.

As for what happened during the Q&A in question, he said, “I wanted to
keep the interview moving, so I got to the heart of the question and really the
heart of York’s article, and the National Review‘s article, which is
that you are a successful Governor, and why aren’t you getting that message out,
which she answered.”

He continued:

In no way did I intend to misquote the National Review.
This exchange aired just once in the 6pm hour, and as soon as the National
Review
brought it to our attention at 7:05, we immediately realized that
the context could be misconstrued, we cut that portion of the interview. It
never aired again. We sent a statement to the National Review in an
email explaining what had happened, that we had in fact cut the question from
any further airings.

 

 




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments