As kos pointed out, Lisa Vorderbrueggen is "exhibit A" for the incompetence of "the people that are supposedly 'informing' the public about our nation's politics."
Originally she said:
Yes, Tauscher voted to allow President Bush to start the Iraq war. But so did every other Democrat in the nation except one.
Now it reads:
Yes, Tauscher voted to allow President Bush to start the Iraq War. But so did every other Democrat in the nation except one. But she wasn't alone: 40 percent of Democrats voted with her.
That is even worse! It exposes the fact that she is simply trying to make the facts fit her predetermined conclusions...
She had given what seemed like a heartfelt mea culpa when this came up earlier at Calitics:
Mea culpa from Vorderbrueggen (7.00 / 5)
Thanks very much to the folks at Calitics for pointing out my error with respect to Tauscher's record on the Iraq War.
In rewrites of the column to make it shorter, something I must always do, I I mistakenly merged Tauscher's votes on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and unfortunately, none of my editors caught it either.
I'll will run a correction as soon as possible, probably not until the Tuesday newspaper as I have logged into my e-mail too late tonight.
I wish I could say that it will be my last mistake but I'm afraid that would be wishful thinking.
Thanks for reading.
Lisa v.
Her current response is a list of excuses and blame shifting that is a little less humble, and makes her mea culpa seem a little less sincere:
I was not working on Monday but I routinely check my e-mail remotely and as soon as I realized I made the mistake, I sent in a correction to my editors.
Unfortunately, the correction fell through the cracks and didn't make it into the newspaper today or the online version. As soon as I realized this morning that it had not been resolved, I chased it down and fixed the online version this morning. The printed version, or so they promise me, will appear in tomorrow's paper.
[snip]
Absolutely, I should have caught it. The two or three editors who read the column should have caught it.
But we didn't. Mistakes happen. It wasn't intentional nor was it part of some grand scheme to misinform people.
Do I feel stupid? Absolutely. No reporter wants to make mistakes and we are usually a lot harder on ourselves when we make a mistake than you might imagine.
But Daily Kos, no one likes a bully.
Here is my response to that:
Being a bully is a relative thing. You are either buying ink or pixels by the barrel. One leaves more of a mark than the other.
I am more concerned about the tone which makes your previous mea culpa on Calitics look a little less heart felt. I was impressed with that, but not this litany of excuses and blame shifting.
I understand that you made a mistake and that you feel stupid. The fact is that you and the print media DO represent the "guardians of our discourse." The public expects you to get it right, and that is your job. It is more than just a service you provide, it should be who you are.
Yes, kos is gloating, but he is right and you are wrong in this instance. Your response should not be resorting to name calling.
In addition, I think we are missing the point entirely by not looking at the difference the correction of the factual error makes. Doesn't it actually contradict the point you were trying to make? Instead of being in lock step with the Democratic Party, she was out of the main stream on that issue; in the minority.
By ignoring that and framing it by saying essentially: "well there were others," don't you transparently change this piece from something that looks objective to one that is simply trying to make the facts fit the point that the author is already trying to make? Doesn't that also break the implicit trust that the public has with the printed media?
And finally, doesn't that further justify the "rant" of the "bully?" Actually, doesn't that make you the bully or at least expose your attempts to appear to be the injured party?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So when it comes down to it, this episode fully removes the integrity of Lisa Vorderbrueggen as an journalist. She is clearly trying to push an idea forward with or without the data to support it. Now...
Why does that sound so familiar?